scott

I decided to rebuke an “evolutionary” blog I came across whose pretentiousness I was immediately offended by.  My responses have been sent into a “moderation” queue so I will just post them here.


 

The first is to someone who calls himself “Arkenaten,” whose ” is an apparent “matt dillahunty” fansite.  I don’t know who dillahunty is, but the name is familiar.  I distinctly remember twitter sparring a similarly pudgy “pastor turned internet-atheist profiteer” who blocked me after just a few messages.  Going by how ark describes him as one to call a person an “idiot” and then hang up on them, it has to be the same guy.

The post I am replying to is this one.  I say:

If I am ignorant, how I am I capable of actual arguments and you only personal attacks and sneering?

If you wish to attack actually substantive points in my posts with your own substantive points, you are welcome to do so. That you shy away from doing so is a simple side-effect of not only having no substantive points of your own, but being totally unable to deal with mine.

As Chesterton said: I can defend my position, you cannot even admit you have yours.

 

Second is a man named “josephurban,” whose blog appears to switch between “trump derangement syndrome,” communism, and blaspheming the Virgin Mary.

The post I am replying to is this one.  I say:

Second time you tried to hide behind a post that will not go into my notifications.

I answered all your points in detail. That your response here is to ignore what I said and then repeat the question hoping for a different answer like a 2 year old reminds me of the writer of this blog.

The one whose life ethos is “let me smother myself in prolix self-rationalization in peace”

Like I told him in a response that went into a moderation queue: it is a bad joke.

 

The third and final one is a man named “ScottBuchanan,” whose blog is him attempting to serve two masters and coming to hate God so he can keep his job and religion of gnosticism intact.  There is so much to say on him, but with over a dozen horrifying personal attacks against me and everything I love and care for in my disqus queue, I am just too tired to bother.  Overall, he reminds me of the online atheist community equivalent of ex-Priests who were employed by the feudal japanese government to stomp on rosaries at command.

The post I am replying to is this one.  This is what I say:

That I have a rock-solid point and the demon on your shoulder with a leash around your neck and a silly Egyptian avatar has none? That this generic term “theist” is some holdover of atheist dogma trying to synthesize all religions so they can blame the Church for what their own paganism does?

I would be embarrassed at how you both act, if I did not have to deal with so many dozens of you daily. How your kind is able to be totally indistinguishable from another is mind-boggling and I wonder how the devil can repeat the same mistake so many times amongst all his puppets without variation.

As I said, I came here to immediately rebuke you for being so repulsive, and then I leave you to suffer your fate as you so desire it. I will not be here longer than I have to, especially with an intellectual coward at the helm whose seeming entire tactic for dealing with rebukes is “ignore them, pretend they said nothing, and then run to sneer behind their backs in the hopes it makes their shame over sin go away.” That you have a slightly different gimmick to the egyptian avatar one is not enough to distinguish you from the other thousand under my belt.

If you want me to destroy you, simply give me the opportunity to do so. No running or desperate attempts your hide your small ideas behind a thesis worth of data that boils down to “I don’t want to be held accountable for my sin, so I’m a monkey.” as well as “I want to usurp God, so I will pretend I created myself over a very long time.” you hope the blathering will make you unable to be answered, when in reality it is only you piling on dirt into a grave.

It is all so silly and a bad joke, this game you play here is sad even for a reprobate hoping to deny God like a bad friend tries to pretend the friend he hurt doesn’t exist.. That it has dragged itself over a week unnecessarily is just sad.

As I said, God is only as “small” as the universe he created. How you manage to speak on the universe without understanding anything that is Universal is just another sad stick of your own dismembered furniture on the pyre you made for yourself.

When I figure out how to remove this bloody notifications, I will be done with you permanently.

27 thoughts on “A damned coward never realizes Truth cannot be censored

    1. Evidence of what, reprobate? What do you count as “evidence” and what is this evidence being used for?

      Like

        1. Again, “What do you count as ‘evidence’ and what is this evidence being used for?”

          Who is this Richard Wad you attribute to me? That is not my name, your google-stalking skills are sub-par.

          Like

          1. If you have to ask what counts as evidence then you don’t know what evidence is.
            All your religious beliefs are simply that – beliefs based on claims of faith. It is these beliefs you make claims and arguments.
            You have no evidence to support them.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. No, it means I am trying to determine common ground and your axioms.

            A classical education would teach a man that there are three requirements for a discussion:
            1) Axioms must be known and clearly stated
            2) Common ground, with the arguments exclusively being made form common ground
            3) Actions cannot be judged without their intentions

            It seems you do not have much of any knowledge about that.

            evidence is a byproduct of observation, and I am wondering how you define a purely natural process like observation into applying for a purely philosophical and metaphysical topic.

            Secondly, Faith is the highest form of thought. It is founding oneself in God, and without it one has nothing; not even the capability of other thought like Reason or Logic.

            So I repeat one last time:
            What do you define evidence as and how does it apply here?

            Like

          3. It is fairly simple to establish that the foundational tenets of your faith-based beliefs are devoid of evidence.
            The human genome project is as good an example as any and has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt the story of Adam and Eve has no veracity.
            Also ….
            The biblical flood narrative, Fiction.
            The Captivity , Exodus and Conquest. Fiction

            Evidence.

            Do you see the difference between this and a claim , such as there were 500 witnesses to an event that has no corroborating evidence whatsoever?

            Like

          4. 500 witnesses? What is this event that troubles you so?

            So your argument is that Adam and Eve cannot exist because of your grasping at divinity?

            Every culture int he world has a half-remembered memory of the deluge.

            A few years ago there was an archaeological dig that said that Israel was completely untouched before the time of the exodus. Not even nomadic tribes had dared step on that ground. Strange, no?

            Like

          5. And not one piece of evidence presented.
            Sigh ….
            What an indoctrinated fundamentalist half wit you are.
            Do you enjoy your little bit of cannibalism when you take the bread and wine?

            Seriously, you must be troll yanking the chain as no one and I mean no one could as stupid as you are portraying yourself to be.

            Like

          6. Do you have a single argument? Or why you somehow believe that empiricism applies to anything outside of its own area, especially metaphysics and things above nature?

            Not to mention how you claim empiricism is the only form of thought, yet try (very hard, yet still fail) to justify that with a philosophical claim; one that is unsatisfactory and self-refuting under your own standard.

            If I am so stupid, why are you so afraid of me?

            As far as “cannibalism,” are you projecting the things you do in your satanic covens?

            One consumes the Essence of God to heal the wounds caused by sin. This is why it is invalid to take without being in a State of Sanctifying Grace, because a bandage or salve is useless over a still-bleeding wound.

            Like

          7. If I am so stupid, why are you so afraid of me

            Good grief, do you substitute outrageous egocentricity for basic intellectual ability?

            Like

          8. No, I asked you a simple question towards your lack of intellectual honesty, and you cannot handle even that. I have no more need of a reprobate in these comments.

            Like

          9. You asked if I was afraid of you. Why on earth would I be afraid of you? Are you planning on conducting a long distance seance or stick pins in an Ark Doll?
            What a silly boy you are, Nigel.

            Like

          10. your desperate personal attacks, your utter and total inability to even address (let alone understand) anything I say at the most basic level shows fear. That you insist on doing this despite being defeated over and over tells me you are hurting and are lashing out.

            A hit dog hollers, you are hollering.

            Like

          11. So your argument is that non-scientific forms of thought are not valid? While you make a philosophical assertion?

            Like

          12. Thought is valid of course.
            But claims are not evidence unless you can substantiate them.
            And as far as the foundational tenets/claims of your religion/faith you can’t.

            Like

          13. No, your standard is that empiricism is only valid. you deny what you affirm, like a “good” gnostic always relies on to satanically distract.

            you treat empiricism like a lonely girl treats boyfriends.

            As Venerable Fulton Sheen says:
            “A dogma, then, is the necessary consequence of the intolerance of first principles, and that science or that church which has the greatest amount of dogmas is the science or the church that has been doing the most thinking. The Catholic Church, the schoolmaster for twenty centuries, has been doing a tremendous amount of solid, hard thinking and hence has built up dogmas as a man might build a house of brick but grounded on a rock. She has seen the centuries with their passing enthusiasms and momentary loyalties pass before her, making the same mistakes, cultivating the same poses, falling into the same mental snares, so that she has become very patient and kind to the erring pupils, but very intolerant and severe concerning the false. She has been and she will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, untruth, affect not personal matters on which she may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding. Meek she is to the erring, but violent to the error. The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, she will admit the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never the heresy into the treasury of her wisdom. Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. And in this day and age we need, as Mr. Chesterton tells us, ‘not a Church that is right when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong.'”

            Like

          14. I am not interested sparring religious waffle.
            If you can’t provide evidence for claims then all they are are claims. And often little more than vacuous assertions.

            You have your faith, backed up by Catholic dogma.
            Good for you.
            Believe whatsoever you like,it your absoluto right to do so( as long as it does not hurt others) just don’t try to pass it on as truth/fact unless you can support it with evidence.

            Like

          15. you are not interested in anything that totally refutes you, which is why you are clearly not intelligent enough to see I have defeated your entire worldview with every message.

            you put up tired, self-serving egoism, and I remind you that your position cannot even stand under its own rules. you ignore what I say like a child, then ask again hoping for a different answer.

            Interesting how you act like a child, but then support the wholesale murder of children in satanic blood sacrifice. Is it because you see actual children as a threat or competition? Keep in mind that each mark of that sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance of abortion carries the same punishment as cain. The number of marks increases 125,000 daily.

            I will not rob you of the chance to scream bland egoism into the void to prepare you for what awaits.

            Like

          16. The ability to ”defeat a worldview” merely means you are able to Point Score better than the next person. It has no bearing on one’s intellectual ability or even basic intelligence, something that you seem glaringly lacking, although you make up for this lack handsomely with a commendable overflowing of hubris.

            It is also amazing that you claim to ”have defeated (my) your entire worldview with every message.” when, as far as I am aware, I have not told you what my worldview is.
            Your powers of deduction in this case are thus, admirable.

            Satanic blood sacrifice?
            Well, this is certainly a new one on me.
            Is there a special hat to go with this and perhaps secret handshake sometime during the ceremony?

            You might enjoy the Tarot Trilogy by Piers Anthony.
            Volume III begins with a profane Satanic Ritual and then an imagined trip to Hell. Sounds right up your street.
            As the author warns the reader: ”Hell is not a nice place”.

            Like

          17. Defeating your worldview is a simple matter of weighing it against Absolute Truth. That your worldview cannot stand up even under your own axioms and requirements, that just means your worldview is not only faulty but self-refuting.

            I can read your messages, I know your kind as I have dealt with hundreds exactly like you. There is nothing original about you other than the fact you take dilahunty’s meme of personal insults while backpedaling in retreat as victory.

            I even dealt with dillahunty myself personally back in my twitter days, and he wasn’t even this childish.

            Nothing imaginative about hell, which you will find at the end of the current path you are on. Have a St Michael and St Benedict Prayer to send your curses back to whence they came.

            PS. The mortal sin of despair, where you think you can project your sin onto me and therefore have me punished in your stead doesn’t work.

            Like

  1. Having re-read some of your comments, and especially the last one on this thread, it seems fairly obvious that you need to seek professional psychiatric help.
    You really are not well. Not well at all

    Like

  2. Channeling the soviets, monster? I don’t know of a modern equivalent to the serbsky institute, so your attempt to mark me for execution seems wasted in the desperate attempt to salvage your ego that has no right to exist.

    That void is still there no matter how much you think attacking me will absolve you by scapegoating.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.