Monday, October 31, 2011

ba77, the scientist, presenting science

See comments 8 and 8.1 in this thread:


Yep, ID is scientific, not religious or political.

That thread is also good for a lot of other insane, two-faced, genocide supporting shit from the IDiots. Be sure to notice this crap from scott the-hit-man-for-god andrews, in comment 3:

"Thankfully, we have ample evidence that God exercises this authority with love and justice." while he asserts that humans are god's possessions and that it's just fine for god to destroy them. That guy is COMPLETELY NUTS and a danger to society. Seriously.

unimaginably small minds


It's no wonder that IDiots are religious dullards. Their thinking is so small that it would take the most powerful electron microscope on Earth to find even a trace of it.

Something to consider is that religious people who claim that there's no life and cannot be any life beyond the Earth also claim that their god is all powerful and all knowing and is not limited in any way, but for some reason only created life on one planet in the entire universe, while they also claim that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life! The only reason I can think of that would make religious people want to believe, and actually believe, that the Earth is the only planet with life is because they want to and actually do believe that they, personally, and life itself, are their god's "creation" and are too special to exist anywhere else. It is the most egotistical, narcissistic, limited way of thinking that anyone could possibly have.

How revealing

In this post (15.1.1)...

...scott the-liar-for-god andrews says:

"You can parrot what someone else told you, but they aren’t here now to back you up. You might have to think for yourself."

Well, scotty, I and a lot of other people know WHY they aren't there. It's because you chickenshit IDiots block and ban most of the people who would gladly comment on UD and easily show that you IDiots ARE a bunch of brain-dead dishonest creationists.

And isn't it interesting and revealing that you know that few, if any, people are there that would likely back Gino up? You obviously also know WHY they aren't there. I'm sure that it gives a coward like you you a sense of security to know that the vast majority of people who would call you IDiots on your lies and bullshit are prevented from even commenting there, simply because they don't agree with you.

Oh sure, you IDiots will let one or a few people disagree or argue with you sometimes so that you give the appearance of 'welcoming open and honest discussion' but you know damn well that most of your opponents are blocked and/or banned.

And when are you religious zombies going to actually think for YOURselves and stop letting your delusional belief in an imaginary god, and the ancient goat molesters who originally conjured 'him' and those beliefs up, and the zombies (like you IDiots) who keep pushing fairy tale religious crap, do your thinking for you? You're just another mindless christian godbot that 'parrots' insane dogma.

Gino is kicking your IDiotic asses, mainly because, unlike you, he's honest.

ALL IDiots ARE creationists

October 31, 2011 at 9:54 am

GinoB wrote:
What is it with you IDCers? Why do you think going “LA LA LA THERE’S NO EVIDENCE!!” somehow magically makes the evidence disappear?”

Would you kindly cool it with these comments.

You continually refer to Intelligent Design Creationists. Your intention is crystal clear and combined with your antagonistic approach, it’s getting real old real fast. Take a page out of Elizabeth Liddle and co.’s book.

In case you missed it, here is the definition of Intelligent Design.

From here:


All IDiots, including you stu7, absolutely, positively ARE creationists. You believe that an intelligent entity (your chosen god) designed and CREATED the universe and every life form within it. You IDiots can argue all you want that creationist is a word that only applies to people who take every word in the biblical genesis story as literally true but it's just a lame and dishonest game you're playing. You simply cannot escape the fact that since you believe that there was and is a creator, you ARE a creationist.

Any details of the 'creation' you support are critical in any argument you IDCs make to support and promote the so-called ID inference/hypothesis/theory but they are irrelevant when it comes to correctly labeling you all as creationists, and it also doesn't matter who or what it is that you believe or say is the creator. Even if you said that your Aunt Martha is the creator you would still be a creationist. As long as you IDiots posit and promote any intelligent designer/creator of anything in nature, you are intelligent design creationists.

Fact: The term "Intelligent Design" was conjured up by creationists in a dishonest attempt to fool people (and science) into thinking that the underlying agenda is scientific. The religious zombies who applied that term to their agenda know that the term "Creationist" has a negative reputation (deservedly so) in the scientific community. They ignorantly and arrogantly thought (and still think) that a name change for their religious/creationist agenda would fool science and anyone else with a clue, but they were and still are mistaken.

And by the way, in your arguments you IDiots don't actually put forth any details of the alleged design and creation of the universe and the life within it because you have no details, and that's one of the main reasons that you are not taken seriously by science. Like I said, details are critical to supporting your assertions, and you have absolutely none.

You IDiots should "cool it" with your dishonesty and denial.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

joe-baby just doesn't know when to shut up

Some recent spewage from joe on UD:

"ya see science requires POSITIVE evidence and your position lacks positive evidence."

You must be the most blind and uneducated moron on the planet if you really believe that there is no positive evidence to support the ToE. Maybe you could tell me what the "positive" scientific evidence is for ID, especially in light of the fact that you've repeatedly said that you IDiots must first "eliminate" the ToE before even "considering" ID?

"YOU need some positive evidence to support your nonsensical claims."

See my comments above, and heed your own words, joe-boi.

"You whine like a little baby when I say “There isn’t any evidence”, yet that is all YOU and your ilk do with respect to Intelligent design!"

Well joe-tard, there is evidence to support the ToE but there isn't any evidence for ID, and when it comes to whining like a little baby, you and your IDiotic "ilk" are the world champions.

"Ya see there still isn’t any way to test the claim that common ancestry is the only explanation of the data."

Really? Well then, let's see you show a scientific way to test your claim that common design explains the "data". Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you and/or other IDiots said that ID accepts common ancestry?

"Perhaps YOU could stop acting like a gullible fool and actually present some science."

Now that's hilarious coming from you joe; a totally unscientific, uneducated, ignorant, fairy tale believing, god pushing, dishonest, two-faced, IDiotic muslim creationist toaster repairboi who thinks that your delusional assertions are "science".

"All you have is circumstantial evidence that can be used for alternative scenarios- circumstantial evidence is nothing more than “If I didn’t believe it I wouldn’t have seen it”- IOW prejudice is what can be read in those papers."

Yeah sure joe, and of course you IDiots have tons and tons and tons of solid scientific evidence for ID, and no prejudice, right? In reality, your entire thought process (what minuscule amount there is of it) is prejudicial, and you can't seem to find any of your claimed "positive" evidence for ID. Did your pet ticks mistake it for watermelon and eat it?

telepathic starlings and all science so far from ba77

Poem, Music & Verse

Walt Whitman (1819–1892). Leaves of Grass. – When I heard the Learn’d Astronomer
WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

Jessie Colter – His Eye Is On The Sparrow -

Matthew 10:31
“So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.”


See this:

And by the way, born-to-be-deranged, Whitman was a humanist and is usually described as being homosexual or bisexual. I'm wondering why your buddy gordo isn't chastising you for quoting such a horrible, so-called 'sinner'. Shouldn't you both be good little christians and condemn Whitman to burn in hell for his crimes against your imaginary god?

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Oh scotteeee, speaking of context

scott andrews barfed (in regard to the biblical canaanite genocide story):

"In this case the wrong you perceive cannot be separated from its context. As an atheist, how can you believe the verses that say God commanded it and reject the ones in which he expresses his hatred of bloodshed and his love of justice? It’s pointless to make arguments about any belief system from outside of its context."


As the bible thumper that you are, how can you believe the verses that allegedly say that god "expresses his hatred of bloodshed and his love of justice" and also either ignore or try to justify the ones in which he commands genocide and many other monstrous acts?

Let's see you double talk your way out of that, you two-faced IDiot.

Friday, October 28, 2011

vjtorley finally said something true...

...about himself:

"I’m nobody of any consequence."


So tell me, vince, why should Dawkins give a shit about what you think or say, and what makes you think that he should respond to your asinine "charges"? And why didn't you post your arrogant drivel on Dawkins' website? Are you too cowardly to do so? Acting like a tough guy in the UD sanctuary-for-chickenshit-god-zombies isn't going to impress anyone except your blow-up jesus doll and your fellow IDiotic cowards on UD.

You've got no room to bash others for alleged cowardice, lying, character assassination, public hypocrisy, moral inconsistency, and an ethical double-standard. Look at yourself, jerk, and at your fellow genocide supporting IDiots, AND at your absolutely insane, sanctimonious, amoral, shit spewing, nazi-esque hero > william lane craig.

excuses, excuses
October 25, 2011 at 5:48 am

ID does NOT ahve the rsources your position does. But when ID does have those resources it is a safe bet that we will come up with something which would be far better than what your position has.

From here:


Gee whiz joe-boi, maybe if some of the money taken in by churches and other religious entities were spent on scientific research, instead of on stained glass windows, fancy buildings, satin and silk robes, gigantic multi-million dollar homes, big hair, Rolex watches, propaganda, and very expensive cars and other paraphernalia, your "position" might "come up with something".

By the way, you just admitted that your position hasn't come up with anything, and that the ToE has. Thanks for clearing that up.

christianity, the religion of and for genocidal maniacs

October 27, 2011 at 7:11 am

One more time for the learning impaired-

If justice is good and the alleged genocides were just, then it follows that God is still good.

Elizabeth Liddle
October 27, 2011 at 2:57 pm

How can genocide be just?

October 27, 2011 at 3:28 pm

I don’t think it can. But what about when the Allies destroyed many German and Japanese cities in World War 2? I’m curious to know if you think those were justified or not.
Elizabeth Liddle
October 27, 2011 at 4:31 pm

Well, I don’t know, Collin. My bias is strongly pacifist, and I find it hard to justify those attacks. But I think that often ethical dilemmas are between two evils, made worse by the fact that we have to guess at the likely results of alternative courses of action. Perhaps those attacks saved lives in the end. I don’t now.

But they were not genocides which is a term usually reserved for the deliberate eradication of a population or culture as the primary effect of an action, and often deliberately targets children to bring about that end, as well as the abduction and/or rape of the women. I do not believe that Churchill or Truman intended to eradicate German/Japanese culture, but to end the war. Hitler, on the other hand, most certainly committed genocide.

On at least three occasions in the NT, God allegedly commands or commits genocide: the Canaanites, the Midianites, and of course the entire world bar 8 people in the Flood.

Anyway, I’m going to log out of UD shortly and take an extended break. It’s been nice to talk to you, but I think I’ve been a thorn in your collective sides for long enough :)

If you want to drop by The Skeptical Zone you’ll be very welcome, as will anyone from UD.
October 27, 2011 at 4:34 pm

Thanks. For the response. I think you mean “OT” not “NT.”
October 28, 2011 at 12:16 am

Dr Liddle:

you just condemned the world to be subjected to the genocidal mania of Hitler and the Japanese militarists.

That’s why I have written in the vein I do here on this subject. There are no easy answers in a world of radically demonic irreconcilable evil. (And you are in no position to dismiss the demonic as only metaphorical if you have not fully grappled wit the case of Hitler, the carpet-chewer.)

So, Craig is fundamentally right that we must start with what is plain and well founded before we address what is difficult, in light of what we have established before. And, I am on record on this matter that there is no easy, non-difficult answer, including he view that lies behind Dawkins’ dismissal. Such is always the case with major worldview issues.

But there is more, an issue of tone, responsiveness and attitude.

Once we reckon with the realities of needing to confront unbridled evil in this world, and its aggressive propagation by sword or by ideology or both, and the problem of irreconcilable blood feuds as a significant feature of the culture in question [something the Romans faced with Carthage and Hannibal], we need to take a long, slow pause before pronouncing too confidently on this matter.

Unless our hearts have lurched like Marshal Petain’s by that roadside on the way to the Verdun Front in 1916, we are in no good position of being sufficiently morally wounded and hurt, to make a sound judgement on this.

(And that, BTW, is the glaring gap between Craig and Dawkins on this matter: Craig is speaking as one wounded by grappling with a really hard difficulty leading to uncertainties and open-endedness in his position, Dawkins is using a supercilious and insincere smearing talking point to dodge having to have the moral courage to defend some really outrageous assertions against Christians, the Scriptures and God.)


October 27, 2011 at 3:55 pm


I hesitate to drive off the “absolute moral good” cliff again, because I think it’s an irrelevant point.

But you seem insistent that to kill a population of people is an absolute moral wrong. Why? I’m not asking it in the snide, ‘you’re an atheist so you don’t believe anything’ way. Really, why?

You can never really judge anything without the facts, not even this. And in this case those facts include what the long-term outcome would be with out without that decision. And that long-term outcome may even include some of those who died. I don’t know.

I’m not asking you to agree with it. I’m asking you to realize that although your point of view is a good principle to live by, it is not a universal all-or-nothing case of right or wrong. Within the context of belief in God is the belief that he gives us enough wisdom to live by, but that he has it all. That enables him to decide what is absolutely right or wrong, but enables us to live within narrower guidelines.

And if you don’t believe in a God who can make those decisions, select the best outcome, and right any wrong, then you don’t believe that God commanded those things anyway. So what does it matter?

It’s like cutting a man’s heart out while he’s still alive and removing it, and cutting another man’s heart out while it’s still beating and putting it in the other body. No matter how you slice it, that will always be barbaric and shocking outside of its context.

In this case the wrong you perceive cannot be separated from its context. As an atheist, how can you believe the verses that say God commanded it and reject the ones in which he expresses his hatred of bloodshed and his love of justice? It’s pointless to make arguments about any belief system from outside of its context.

To me, the next logical argument is, what if someone says that God commanded him to raise an army and commit another genocide? If this act is viewed as righteous, what else will someone do? I don’t disparage such reasoning. It’s rational, and such fears have been realized many times over. But there’s no value in explaining it to anyone who doesn’t really want to know about it. The world is full of people, including clergy and theologians, who have read the Bible from cover to cover and have never been moved by it, because they view it as a collection of stories, just one more dusty old book to discuss academically.


If there really is "radically demonic irreconcilable evil" in the world, it's in christians and other religious maniacs who excuse and condone genocide and other despicable acts in the name of their god. gordo and the rest of the bloodthirsty IDiot horde (with only one or two possible exceptions) are as crazed and dangerous as muslim terrorists, and maybe more so.

By the way, did you notice the sneaky trick of trying to divert attention to Hitler, instead of just accepting and admitting that the christian god is depicted as a murderous, sadistic, two-faced, petty, selfish, violent monster in the so-called holy book (the bible) that is alleged to be his own words?

Just one thing that the barbaric, genocide-supporting IDiots are conveniently ignoring is that Hitler was not a god, was not depicted as a god, didn't claim to be a god, and was not alleged to be a loving, forgiving, merciful, kind, peaceful, caring, prayer answering, healing, life-giving god. So, what's the christian god's excuse for being a genocidal monster and for his worshipers to be in support of his multiple acts of genocide? Shouldn't "God" and his worshipers and promoters be better than someone like Hitler?

Also, please notice this (from gordo) especially:

"Dr Liddle: you just condemned the world to be subjected to the genocidal mania of Hitler and the Japanese militarists."

Yeah, as though Dr. Liddle actually did that. Sheesh!

I honestly can't think of anyone more despicable than gordon e. mullings of Montserrat.

There's a lot more IDiotic support and justification for genocide in that thread and others.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

And the tard goes on, la de da de de, la de da de da
October 27, 2011 at 5:19 am

Please reference the active research – developmental biology perhaps- that demonstrates a land mammal can evolve into a fully aquatic mammal.


Hey joe, please reference the active ID research that demonstrates that your chosen god (or any god) designed and created anything or everything.

joe-baby also blurted

"And BTW in order to even consider a design inference we must first eliminate your position! So eliminating your position does indeed support ID."



It's strange that you say that, because you IDiots DO "consider" AND constantly push the so-called intelligent design inference/hypothesis/theory, even though you haven't even come close to eliminating the ToE.

Do you realize that with your words above, you have effectively eliminated any need to even "consider" ID?

ID in a nutshell, as stated by joe-boi
October 27, 2011 at 5:15 am

Designers have been observed to design stuff and from that we can extrapolate.

Your position has nothing to extrapolate from.



gpukio, retardo extraordinarius

My responses are in bold type.
October 27, 2011 at 12:14 am


Well, just to explain why I say that you are just “looking for a fight”:

a) Have you read my many detailed posts about dFSCI? It seems not, from what you write. So, why are you jumping to the conclusion that it is a “made up, subjective metric”?

I've read them and am worse off for it. All you've done is type a massive amount of bald assertions and dogmatic, subjective, made-up, non-scientific crap. Simply asserting tons of convoluted, sciency sounding gobbledegook will not get science to take your bullshit seriously.

Learn the SCIENTIFIC method, coherently define your terms, do some actual research, get some actual evidence, test, retest, and test again, build up a convincing SCIENTIFIC case, throw out any and all thoughts about and references to religious fairy tales, write some SCIENTIFIC papers, submit them to legitimate SCIENTIFIC journals, and IF you actually have a relevant, legitimate, SCIENTIFIC point to make you just might get published, and then you can and SHOULD pay close attention to any critiques of whatever gets published and be willing to accept that even if you are published you could still be wrong. Simply blabbering on UD won't get you anywhere with science. You IDiots need to realize that you are NOT scientists and you are NOT gods or any other authority that can dictate how science should be done.

b)You say:

at best your claim “only intelligently designed things can have large amounts of dFSCI” is a hypothesis, not any sort of established truth.

What you are expressing here is not the initial hypothesis, but the final inference. It is obvious that you don’t know, or don’t understand, the ID position.

What you are expressing is just your dogmatic, subjective, personal view, which it totally based on your crazy religious beliefs. Playing word games with "inference", "hypothesis", and "theory" just shows how little you know about science and how desperate you are to try to pass off your religious agenda as a scientific endeavor. Everyone who pays attention to the ID agenda knows and understands the "ID position" and they know that it's just a religious and political agenda. You IDiots know it and so do your opponents. You're just too dishonest to admit what the ID agenda really is, but you're not fooling anyone with a clue.

c) You say:

To honestly test the hypothesis, you’re going to have to measure both known designed and known not-designed things.

That’s exactly what I explicitly do in my reasoning about dFSCI. I show that known designed objects, that is human artifacts, often exhibit dFSCI (very easy to demonstrate). And that no known not-designed object exhibits it (equally easy to demonstrate).

No, that is not what you do. You haven't actually measured/calculated the alleged "dFSCI", "CSI", dFSCO/I", or "FSCI" in anything, and you haven't even coherently defined those terms or proposed a way to use them on any real things. Your alleged "reasoning" doesn't prove squat! It is already known that humans design things, IDiot. Let's see you or any other IDiot easily demonstrate the amount of alleged "dFSCI", "CSI", dFSCO/I", or "FSCI" in the things I listed in a previous post. Start with a banana.

After your "easy" demonstration, you can eat the banana while you try to "conscientiously" "get in the state of mind of a monkey".

From those empirical observations, and only from them, derives the concept that dFSCI is an empirical indicator of design. Then I use that indicator to formulate a design inference for biological information, that does exhibit dFSCI in great amounts.

That is the correct epistemological sequence.

How stupid can you get? You throw the words "empiriical" and "epistemological" (and other words) around as though you actually know what they mean and you, like other IDiots, think that using fancy words will magically legitimize your unsupported assertions. You also obviously think that just because you say that "biological information" or biological entities contain or "exhibit" "dFSCI", it's somehow instantly verified. As your buddy joe-boi says, you can't just say it, you have to show it.

d) You say:

You can’t look at a whole class of unknown-origin objects (i.e biological life) and then conclude that they’re all designed based on the very thing you’re trying to test.

Obviously. I have never done that. That kind of statement only demonstrates that you have never read my posts on the subject. or never understood them

So, either you are cognitively superficial and arrogant, or you are just looking for a fight. QED.

Q.E.D. yourself, dipshit. You're the one being superficial and arrogant and you're a liar too. Your arguments are so dishonest, circular, and ridiculous it's not even funny.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

gordo obviously thinks...

...that the more words he projectile vomits, the more credible they will be.

Cheesis fucking kee-rist, is that a shitload of tard or what? Is there a Guinness world record category for tardaciousness?

gpukio keeps stepping in it

My responses are in bold type

October 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm


You ask why????

I was just restating the fundamental consclusion of ID theory. Do you want me to explain it all again from scratch?

ID is not a "theory", at least in the scientific sense, and the only "consclusion" (sic) you IDiots have reached is that you are some alleged god's agents, here to crush science, and save sinners and the world. There are just three words needed to explain the so-called ID "theory" from scratch: god-did-it.

Because dFSCI is found empirically only in designed things.

Sciency sounding, but "dFSCI" is undefined and not empirical.

Because biological information has tons of dFSCI.

Prove it! You IDiots are all bald assertions and lies, and NO evidence.

Because you cannot explain that dFSCI in biological information in any other way, and the design inference remains the best explanation, indeed the only one we have at present.

The only best explanation "we" have? You've GOT to be joking! And who's "we"?

You IDiots can't even coherently define "dFSCI" or "CSI" or "FSCO/I" or "dFSCO/I" or whatever sciency sounding term you're using this week, or show that any biological thing has any. You're the ones who use those sciency sounding, but bogus, terms. YOU are the ones who need to define, explain, and prove them. Your so-called "best explanation" is based solely on your dogmatic, subjective, personal views (crazy religious beliefs).

And didn't you say that ID is a "theory"? Now you call it an "inference". You morons just can't keep anything straight.

Because the only other model explicitly proposed, neodarwinism, completely fails to explain what it pretends to explain.

blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Get a fucking clue and STFU.

So many words, so little intelligence

My responses are in bold type.

October 25, 2011 at 3:30 pm

DrBot: Your model requires an extra entity – the immaterial I. Which one is less parsimonious in not positing an unmeasurable and unobserved entity?

No. My model requires only an observed entity: the subjective I. Please note that I have not said “immaterial”. And my model describes its observed relations with perceived objects, through an interface that all of us can observe (the interaction between subjective states and objects, in both directions, as perceptions and actions).


Your model assumes, without any reason or empirical support, that the subjective I (an observed entity) is explained by other completely different entities (objects and their relations). That is not parsimonious: it is simply arbitrary.

Sounds to me like you arbitrarily choose the hallucinogenic drugs you take.

(DrBot): There is no empirical evidence I know of where a consciousness persists or returns after the death of the brain and body. I’m making an inference based on observation

You must be kidding. That would be an observation?

YES, that would be an observation. All one has to do is OBSERVE that there is NO EVIDENCE of "a consciousness" persisting or returning after death. Of course one also has to be sane. I'm afraid that leaves you out.

Let’s see. We have a consciousness expressing itself through a body. OK.

Then we observe the body stop and die (disintegrate, degenerate, whatever you want to call it).

We obviously don’t see anymore the consciouness expressing through that body. How could it? The body is no more there.

Are you claiming to be able to "see" the consciousness (in the form of your definition of consciousness) in another person's body? Can you also see it after the person is dead and it leaves their body? Where does their consciousness go and what does it do there? How long does it "persist". Why and when does it "return", where does it return to, and what does it do after it returns?

And you say that this is “observing” that the cosnciousness does not persist? Or “return”?

Do you believe that chocolate chip cookies are conscious beings, and that when they're materially destroyed by being being chewed up and swallowed, their consciousness persists and returns? If not, why not? After all, neither you nor anyone else can absolutely prove that that doesn't happen, can you?

What are you observing of the consciousness? Only the dying conscious being can observe its consciousness. Not you.

Well then, what can YOU observe of "the consciousness"? Are you dying?

And all the evidence from NDEs tells us that consciousness does survive, even in states of absent brain function.

Aha, the NDE bullshit gets trotted out. What a surprise, NOT. Bullshit is bullshit, not "evidence". Your brain function is totally absent.

You are strangely ready to consider “observation” whatever imagination suits your ideas.

Look who's talking! And speaking of strange, your delusions are a stranger to sanity.

(DrBot): ?? was that relevant in any way ??

Sure. Strong AI is the foolish idea that some form of objective organization of matter can generate a conscious I. And that’s exactly the basis of your argumentations. It’s strong AI that pretends that the hard problem of consciousness has been solved by modern science, one of the biggest lies in human thought.

Unless you want to dogmatically impose your personal views, you cannot ask that others share your subjective ideology. Sound familiar?

(DrBot): all observed acts of design are traceable to a physical entity. The claim you are making is that those entities require some non physical attributes to function.

No. You don’t understand my position at all. I have not made discussions of “physical” or “material”. Indeed, many times I have refused to use those terms, and when I do it’s only because my interlocutor uses them.

Liar. You "discussions" totally rely on physical/material vs. immaterial/supernatural, and you do use terms like "material", "material body", "outer material support", "material process", "non material character", "matter", etc. Tell me, gpukio, is "the consciousness" material or immaterial? Is it matter, anti-matter, non-matter, dark matter, a combination, none of the above, or what?

What I claim is empirical. Subjective representations are a basic part of my map of reality. Consciosuness and the subjective I are a basic part of it. Why? Because they exist, and are perceived in the personal experience of each of us.

No, what you claim is your 'subjective, dogmatic, personal view' which is based on delusional religious belief in fairy tales. You don't have a clue about reality.

I am not saying what consciousness is. I don’t pretend to have solved the hard problem of cosnciousness. But I call things with their names. The I is the I. It is not explained by anu objective theory. So it remains the I, for me.

Oh, so you don't know what consciousness is but you know that it came from your chosen god, that humans are the only organisms that have it, and you can see it in yourself and others even after death, eh? And you know for sure that it does persist and return after death, right? Uh, you wouldn't happen to have any proof of that would you? And no, religious fairy tales and bullshit renditions of so-called NDE's don't count.

Please, read again more carefully my previous statement:

“All empirically observed acts of intelligence are traceable to conscious representations in human cosnciousness. Again, that humans are “made of physical matter” is an unwarranted assumption. Their body certainly is.”

It is simply true. All empirically observed acts of intelligence are traceable to conscious representations in human consciousness. Can you deny it?

You need to talk to joe-boi. He claims that termites are intelligent agents. Are termites conscious and intelligent? Do they intelligently design? If you believe that termites are not conscious or intelligent, how do you know that and what evidence do you have?

I am not saying that cosnciousness is not material. Obviously, I am not saying that ity is material. I am saying two very specific things:

What you're saying makes no sense.

1) All acts of intelligence are traceable to conscious representations in human consciousness. A simple empirical fact.

Do you have objective proof of that? Can you prove that no other organisms, besides humans, on Earth or throughout the universe, are conscious or intelligent?

2) That humans are “made of physical matter” is an unwarranted assumption. Their body certainly is. A simple judgment about one of your gratuitous statements.

Make up your feeble mind. Without our "physical matter" body we aren't humans.

This is what I have said.

In rersponse, you give an amazing series of false statements:

a) “All observed acts of design are traceable to a physical entity”.

Not true.

Yes true. Prove me wrong by showing me a non-physical entity that designs. Where's a ghost or god when you need one? LOL

They are traceable to the conscious representations of an agent, expressed through a physical brain and body.

In other words, they (observed acts of design) are "traceable to a physical entity", just as DrBot said.

Please note that I am not saying if those representations are “physical”. I don’t want to impose my ideas about the hard problem of consciousness to anyone.

Too late, you have already imposed your ideas (subjective, dogmatic, personal views) about a lot of things and I'm sure that you want to impose them on EVERYone.

But it is certainly correct to call conscious rfepresentations “a separate entity”.

No, that is not "certainly correct". Let's see you separate your "conscious rfepresentations" (sic) from your physical body and then have them design something. Blow yourself up with dynamite like I suggested in my other post and then get your non-destroyable consciousness busy on designing me a new house.

They are perceived as a different part of reality, with specific properties which are different from the properties of so called objective entities.

Perceived by whom, you and anyone who happens to agree with you? Would that mostly or only be people who don't want to believe that when they die they will just die and that their consciousness (souls, in your religious jargon) will die too?

b) “The claim you are making is that those entities require some non physical attributes to function”.

Simply not true. I have not made that claim. I have denied that consciousness can be explained by purely objective models. And I don’t like the ambiguous concepts of “physical” or “material”.

Actually, you have made that claim, and your diatribe is so confused and contradictory that it's impossible to tell for sure just what you claim from one statement to the next.

c) ” That humans are made of physical matter is not an assumption – it is a direct observation.”

Not true. That human bodies are made of physical matter is, perhaps, an observation.

Wow, you're really in denial of reality.

But humans are also a cosnciousness, with subjective experiences. Stating that consciousness is “made of physical matter” is the silly and unwarranted assumption of stron AI. Nobody in his mind should accept such a nonsense blindly.

Well, if consciousness means being alive, while we're alive, then yeah, we're a combination of a physical body and the life within it. A dead human though, is obviously pretty devoid of consciousness (life). Hmm, silly, unwarranted, blindly accepted nonsense. Now let me see, where have I encountered that before? I know! In all the non-scientific, non-realistic crap you IDiots spew!

I don't recall that DrBot said that "consciousness" is "made of physical matter". It appears to me that what he's saying is that supernatural, immaterial, non-physical entities (gods, in religious jargon) cannot be shown to exist or to have designed even a single thing, let alone all the things that you IDiots claim that your imaginary god designed.

Your statement that “humans are made of physical matter” implies the truth of the strong AI assumption. Far from being a direct observation, it is indeed a gross attempt to present a silly theory as a fact.

Humans are made of physical matter, and it is a direct observation, at least by sane people. Have you seen any humans lately that are not made of physical matter? If so, I would recommend a major modification to your medications, or shock therapy.

d) What is not observed is anything (yet) that operates outside the laws of the known universe.

Obviously not true. Scientism at its lowest levels.

Get mental help, immediately. You need it. You're suffering from insanity, at its highest level.

What are you saying? That we know all the laws of the known universe? What about dark energy? What about consciousness? What about the many uncertain and contradicting intepretations of many aspects of quantum mechanics?

What about them? Are you saying that there's a law that we haven't discovered that will verify that your religious delusions are true? What if there's a law that verifies that the flying spaghetti monster is true?

DrBot said "What is not observed...." and he's right in saying that nothing is observed "that operates outside the laws of the known universe". Everything that has been or "is" observed operates within the laws of the known universe, and whatever the "laws" are that govern what happens in this universe, whether humans know about all of the laws or not, they are still the laws that govern what happens in this universe and they have been and will be legitimately discovered, studied, and described by legitimate scientists, not religious nutcases who just make shit up to suit their fearful, arrogant insanity.

What about the many unsolved observations in astrophysics? What about NDEs?

And so on, and so on…

So-called NDE's are delusions or at least illusions and prove absolutely nothing about any god, and many "unsolved observations in astrophysics" are not going to affect the understanding of "laws", and so on, and so on. The bottom line is that you don't have any evidence whatsoever to support your ID/religious claims. Unless you can come up with some, you're just spewing your personal, dogmatic, subjective view.

Notice that I am not actually denying the idea of some, as yet unmeasured, entity lying at the root of consciousness

Fine for me.

Actually, you're denying anything that doesn't fit your retarded religious beliefs. Sucks to be you.

(DrBot): I am just making an inference from observation

False, as shown above.

The only thing you've shown above is that you're a pompous, bloviating fool.

(DrBot): I’m not imposing my views, just giving my opinion

You can give your opinion, and still recognize that the hard problem of consciousness is not solved. To state that it is solved scientifically is imposing a subjective view in the form of a scientific achievement (another way to define scientism).

Well la dee freakin' da, ain't you the shit. The "hard problem" that isn't solved is whether IDiots like you can even wipe your own ass or flip a light switch without detailed instructions every time. How should YOUR subjective view be defined?

(DrBot): are you imposing your personal views about what is called by all “the hard problem of consciousness”?

Not at all. I fully agree that it is not scientifically solved. And I have definite opinions about it, that I can freely share.

So, when it's other people it's imposing false, dogmatic, subjective, personal views and ideology but when it's you it's just an opinion that you can freely share, even though it's obvious that you won't tolerate any opinion, theory, evidence, or fact that you simply don't like because it doesn't suit your religious beliefs.

(DrBot): and I agree that it is a hard problem and not understood – I have friends who work directly in the field) My own attitude is ‘we don’t know’ and from that I look to the little that we do know

That looks like a healthy attitude :)

Like you'd know what a healthy attitude is.

But are you practicing what you preach?

Are YOU?

(DrBot): Exactly – you summarized the problems many people have with ID

Similar feelings, but very different cognitive choices, it seems :)

You're giving yourself far too much credit. To make cognitive choices you first have to have a brain. By the way, you left out your words that DrBot was responding to a few sentences above, so here they are:

"And you cannot base a “best explanation” on an unwarranted assumption, based on a subjective ideology."

You IDiots really should heed those words and "practice what you preach".

Which is it, gpukio?

My responses are in bold type.
October 26, 2011 at 3:05 am


thank you for the interesting proposals.

I fully endorse #1, that can be a good description of a god.

I appreciate the other three, but personally I would not consider them good explanations. But you know, it’s personal.

Yet just the other day you said:

"Therefore, unless you want to dogmatically impose your personal views about what is called by all “the hard problem of consciousness”, certainly one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in human thought, you cannot ask that others share your subjective ideology."

Well, gpukio, you don't seem to have any problem with dogmatically imposing your wacky "personal views" and "subjective ideology" and asserting them as though they are absolute truths that others should eagerly accept. You're just another typical, self-righteous, blubbering IDiot.

What's the right term to describe this?

October 26, 2011 at 5:03 am

Yaeh and MAYBE someday your position will have some research that supports your position!But until then do keep those promissory notes a comin’….



Intellectual dishonesty?




Needs to look at a mirror?

Ass backward IDiot?

Dumber than a turd?


Tuesday, October 25, 2011

ba77 is infatuated with whale penises

Just sayin'. :)

willy nilly tells lies

GinoB said:

"That’s the big part IDists won’t own up to, because they know their Omnipotent God wouldn’t be allowed in science classes. So they keep playing the “it’s not about the designer” game, and science keeps just rolling its eyes."

willy nilly murray (aka meleagar) respond:

"An appeal to motivation is irrelevant to the debate at hand. You might make room in your conception of the ID community that not everyone has such ulterior motives and focus on the facts and logic of the arguments presented."

Here (39):


The so-called ID 'hypothesis/theory' was conjured up by creationitwit god zombies and is pushed by creationitwit god zombies. You're flat out lying and you know it, or should know it. The ulterior "motivation" for you IDiots is to cram your religious beliefs into every aspect of everyone's life whether they like it or not.

You mindless sheep attack science, and especially the ToE, because they're a threat to your fairy tale religious beliefs. You and your fellow thumpers spout religious nonsense while claiming that you're being scientific and focusing on facts and logic, yet you think that no one with a clue will notice your contradictory dishonesty. You're so fucking crazy that you actually believe everyone else is too!

You are the ones making a "categorical error" (comment 34.2) when you think that you will replace science with your delusional religious bullshit. Keep your insanity to yourselves and stop trying to pervert science!

GinoB said:

"The first step in identifying suspected design, and the most important step, is understanding the identity and capabilities of the designer."

willy nilly responded:

"How does one say anything about the identity or capability of a designer before they even have an item they suspect of being designed?"

Huh? What? Did you really say that? YOU Idiots are the ones who not only "suspect" that many or all "item(s)" are designed but you constantly claim that many or all "item(s)" are designed! Since you IDiots do that, constantly, Gino's point is well taken, and you have no legitimate excuse to avoid it.

By the way willy, I'm still waiting for you or any other IDiot to "handily" calculate the "FSCO/I" in the things I listed in my previous post. You said that it can be "handily" done, so "handily" do it. Oh wait, you later said that you just read that it can be done. In other words, you were talking out of your IDiotic ass when you said (about "FSCO/I"):

"It is rigorously defined, and it can be calculated handily."

Are gpukio and vjtorley clones?

They sure do sound a lot alike.

On another note, in this very revealing thread that further demonstrates how deranged and arrogant IDiots are...

...gpukio, the coward who ran away from Mark Franks blog, says (among other things):

"And you cannot base a “best explanation” on an unwarranted assumption, based on a subjective ideology."

Then WHY are you and the other IDiots pushing ID and the rest of your asinine, unwarranted assumptions and subjective religious beliefs? Do you really think that your statement above doesn't apply to you IDiots? Well, it's obvious that you and the rest of the IDiots do think that, but you're wrong. YOU are the ones with the unwarranted assumptions, based on a subjective ideology, and YOU are the ones imposing your dogmatic personal views. Actually, calling your beliefs an ideology is being way too kind. It's insanity, and you are as insane as it gets.

You say:

"Consciousness is never destroyed."

"It is obviosuly in no way evidence that consciousness is generated by the body."

"But again, the “acts of intelligence” empirically originate in consciousness, not in the body."

"That humans are made of matter is only your arbitrary assumption. Humans have a body, which is certainly made of matter. But there is no evidence that their consciousness is generated by the material body."

Tell you what, gpukio, shove several sticks of dynamite up your ass and set them off. Your body (your matter/material), including your head (which is already up your ass), will be destroyed. Then come here and tell me if you still have consciousness and if your consciousness survived. I impatiently await your report. A video of the explosion would be especially entertaining and informing, that is, IF you or your consciousness are conscious enough afterward to provide one.

Thanks gordo...

...for stating that "warranted correction to a damaging and demonstrably false assertion — whether or not it is a genuinely held opinion — is not uncivil", which of course means that everything I say here, and everything that is said by anyone against...


>every other IDiot/creationist/godbot/fairy tale pusher



>any other religion pushing website

>any religious beliefs

>any political agenda based on religious beliefs

>any agenda to include or force religion into public schools, government, and other public entities and properties

>any attempt or agenda by an individual or group to replace, invade, denigrate, eliminate, or manipulate the scientific method and/or the standard (non-religious/non-supernatural) practice of science

>any religious agenda of any kind

>any churches or other religious organizations

>any religious indoctrination of children

>any religious books and other writings

>any religious radio or television broadcasts

>and any religious images, statues, demonstrations, videos, paraphernalia, jewelry, etc. not uncivil, since all of that, and everything you and other IDiots spew, is based on damaging and demonstrably false assertions that warrant correction.

I appreciate your support and approval.

gordo the fascist gets spanked

October 25, 2011 at 1:08 am

So, please stop making false assertions like you just did.

KF, I didn’t see anything false about the assertion, just an opinion being expressed.

That is a really nasty rhetorical device you seem to like to use almost everyday – instead of accepting that others may have different opinions to you, and may interpret things differently, you just imply that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar.

(your apparent belief that you are infallible means you cannot accept that you could ever be wrong)

Your whole debating style smacks of fascism, you prefer to dictate rather than debate.

I really wish you would actually practice the things you preach to others about civility, then most of the debates that take place here wouldn’t end up so badly poisoned.

And before you start complaining, it won’t do any good – I will continue to try and correct you behavior whenever I see it has slipped below the bar for civilized debate.

You have been warned. Please do better.

From here:


I'm lovin' it. :)

gordo, der fuhrer

Monday, October 24, 2011

The bullshit never ends

William J Murray
October 24, 2011 at 8:14 am

“Unless ID proponents provide a design metric that describes what ID is (and is not) capable of, the claim that ID can and did produce current biological features is non-falsifiable.

When ID proponents refuse to provide such a metric, but rather rely on subjective “it looks designed to me” narratives that assume their conclusion, then skepticism is a proper response.”

Nobody here (that I’m aware of) is claiming that ID did produce such features as a matter of scientific fact, but rather is only claiming that ID is the best provisional explanation for some features, because the only agency or process we know of that produces well over 500-1000 bits of FSCO/I is intelligent design (that of humans).

500-1000+ bits of FSCO/I is the ID metric where the “best explanation” of any phenomena moves from “physics & chance” to ID agency. ID is unnecessary to explain FSCO/I below that amount, thus it is falsifiable in terms of the only thing it claims according to the metric it provides: “best provisional explanation”.

Darwinists, however, claim that RM & NS are what factually generated the features in question, without a means of falsifying it even as “best provisional explanation”.

October 24, 2011 at 8:43 am

William J Murray

500-1000+ bits of FSCO/I is the ID metric where the “best explanation” of any phenomena moves from “physics & chance” to ID agency.

That would be the FSCO/I metric that no one has rigorously defined, or given an objective way to measure, or calculated for any real world biological objects, right?

In other words it’s just another way of saying “this looks designed to me” with lots of pseudo-technical jargon added for window dressing.

William J Murray
October 24, 2011 at 9:07 am

That would be the FSCO/I metric that no one has rigorously defined, or given an objective way to measure, or calculated for any real world biological objects, right?

No. It is rigorously defined, and it can be calculated handily. You can find the definition and reference in the FAQ and Glossary on this site, or by googling “kairosfocus FSCO/I” and finding many exhaustive epxlanations and examples on this site and others.


Actually, YES, that WOULD be the FSCO/I metric that no one has rigorously defined, or given an objective way to measure, or calculated for any real world biological objects. "FSCO/I" cannot be "calculated handily" and has never been "calculated handily" because it is a completely bogus term.

Want to prove me wrong, willy? Then handily calculate the "FSCO/I" in a banana, a frog, a rock, a cloud, a hydrogen atom, a galaxy, a fish, a mushroom, a pumpkin seed, and a petunia. Show your work. Maybe the almighty kairosflaccid can help you. LMAO!

The combined brain power of joe-boi and phil-latio

October 24, 2011 at 7:23 am

Hey, rabbits have huge hind limbs and short fore-limbs. T-Rex has huge hind limbs and short fore-limbs- therefor, using evotard “logic” of comparison anatomy, rabbits and T-Rex are related.

October 24, 2011 at 7:28 am

Joseph, there could be a peer-reviewed paper in that for you.

From here:


A paper describing you two would easily pass peer review by stating just one word: IDiots!

There's a lot more to comparative anatomy than just the length/size of bones, you brainless dweebs. If anything, it's baraminology (what joe-boi the muslim creationist believes in and pushes) that would likely place T. rex and rabbits into the same 'baramin' based on a comparison of just the differences in length/size of the bones of the fore and hind limbs.

Oh, and batshitcrazy77, you might want to use more reliable sources for your drivel. For example, Cave Bears were not "20 feet long", Dire Wolves were not "5 feet high", and Panthera leo spelaea was not "11.5 feet long" (minus the tail). Is 77 your IQ?

And what the fuck is your point in spewing this crap?:

"However there was actually an incredible variety of giant creatures, incomprehensible by our perception of animals in the current world."

What exactly is "incomprehensible" about there being large animals in the past? Have you ever heard of a Blue Whale by any chance? It exists in "the current world", dumbass, and it's a LOT bigger than any of the animals you listed. Your "perception", of everything, is extremely limited and deranged, to put it mildly.

Deep in tard

Eugene S
October 24, 2011 at 4:45 am

I agree. Darwinism is all about irresponsibly using various figures of speech.


His projection leaves me speechless.

Another false accusation from an IDiot

October 23, 2011 at 11:50 pm


“Americans and Indians are not the same species?”

That’s very white of you!

And this is why the world will never unite under the present pseudo-intellects guidance. When evolutionists call other human beings different species as if some are considered lower forms of life(sub-human), then expect the continued failed pursuit of world peace and security. Generally when you hear this kind labling of humans as being different species, it usually originates with folks who are caucasian. Nothing seems to have changed since centuries past. So-called modern enlightenment is apparently still just an illusion.


Hey eocene, it was robert byers, one of your fellow IDiots, who asserted that "indians" and "Americans" are not the same species. You're obviously WAY too stupid to have noticed that paraqwinn was QUESTIONING that assertion. There's a QUESTION MARK at the end of paragwinn's QUESTION, you illiterate piece of god zombie trash! In your zeal to attack anyone who doesn't worship you and your imaginary god, you have accused the WRONG person! That's par for the course with you IDiots.

This is what byers said, NOT paraqwinn:

"These indians were not Americans They merely walked on land now possessed by Americans. They are not the same people.
Get the species right."

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Butterfly wings and IDiotic assertions

In this article...

...some IDiot baldly asserted:

"No insect has the capacity to plan out its photonic crystals, wings, antennae, compound eyes or other elaborate structures. Much less does natural selection or any other unguided natural process have such a power."

"Designs with functions as effective and beautiful as a flashing butterfly wing point to a designing intelligence that understands both function and beauty that other designing intelligences would appreciate and would wish to imitate."

I would challenge those bald assertions on ENV but no comments are allowed on that article (a demonstration of their "courage", LOL), so I'll post my challenge here:

First of all, the IDiot writer assumes and asserts that a butterfly's "photonic crystals, wings, antennae, compound eyes or other elaborate structures" are "plan(ned) out", without having ANY evidence to show that that is the case. So, I'm going to toss that shit out and use different terminology.

If no unguided natural process can affect/alter the wings of a butterfly, then why is it that the natural chilling (cold shock) or warming (heat shock) of the chrysalis of a butterfly can cause the colors and patterns on the wings to be drastically different than what is typical of the species? Why is it that natural cold shock or heat shock can affect/alter the colors, patterns, or venation, and cause other abnormalities in other insects as well?

Is the temperature in every nook and cranny in nature something that is constantly controlled by some god? Does some god design each and every individual wing, wing scale, photonic crystal, pigment, antenna, eye, and "elaborate structure" of every insect on Earth, that has ever lived and ever will live?

How does ID 'theory' explain aberrant butterflies and other insects (or any other aberrant organisms)? Does god just like to design and create something abnormal sometimes?

In that article on ENV the IDiot writer also says:

"Ever wonder how butterflies flash brilliant colors from their wings? It's not done with pigment. Instead, butterflies use a trick of light that sounds like something out of Star Trek: "photonic crystals."" (my bold)

"The iridescent blue of the Morpho butterfly (seen on the cover of the Metamorphosis DVD) uses this technique, while and the oranges and yellows of the Monarch are produced by pigments." (my bold)

"Many butterflies use a combination of pigment color and structural color." (my bold)

Make up your microscopic mind, IDiot.


For some info on aberrant butterflies and other insects, see these or do a search for aberrant butterflies cold shock.

Repent now!

wgbutler, another bloodlusting god pusher

My responses are in bold type.

October 21, 2011 at 11:52 am


It is extremly clear to me that Dawkins is simply grasping on to this latest excuse in an attempt to distract everyone from his cowardice.

Spewed by a cowardly wimp from behind the protective wall at UD. And when it comes to manufacturing distractions, you IDiots reign supreme.

He is clearly an intellectual bully, and is trying to divert away from the real issue (he is afraid to defend his views where they can be critically evaluated by an intelligent and informed adversary). He doesn’t fool anyone, and its extremely obvious what he’s doing.

You just described exactly what you IDiots do every day by hiding in the UD sanctuary (and other restrictive sites) and not facing all of the intelligent and informed adversaries to your agenda. Like every other IDiot, you are exactly what you condemn, and YOU aren't fooling anyone with a clue.

Oh, and your chosen god isn't a bully? According to the bible, he is the biggest bully of all time.

That being said, I have no issues with the commands God gave the Israelites regarding the Canaanites, so I’ll happily defend that issue if you wish.

Of course you "have no issues with" and will "happily defend" the ruthless slaughter of men, women, children, cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys, as ordered by your chosen god, according to your so-called holy book! After all, you're a two-faced, god pushing, goose-stepping moron who loves the idea of a bloodbath! Tell me, were the slaughtered animals sinners too?

Joshua 6:21 New Living Translation (NLT)

21 They completely destroyed everything in it with their swords—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys.

Hit me with your best shot.

Come here punk, and I'll be glad to.


What does the "wg" stand for? wussy godbot?

There are no mirrors in the land of religion

October 22, 2011 at 7:09 pm


It is apparent from many comments here that Dawkins has succeeded to some extent in sufficiently muddying the waters, by taking the focus off his personal cowardice and onto spurious arguments about scriptures.

If Dawkins wants to make such accusations against Graig, then he should have the courage to do so at the Sheldonian, where Craig can answer back. Let the audience decide what weight the Old Testament treatment of the Canaanites holds in the larger question of the evidence for Gods existence. Dawkins should have the courage to defend the arguments he makes in The God Delusion face to face with WLC, rather than hurl insults from the safety of his ivory tower.

From here:


All those insults, accusations, and bluster are hurled from inside the safety of the UD ivory tower sanctuary, where most opponents are banned and blocked and cannot answer back, to anything. Yeah, alan-the-cowardly-godbot, you and your fellow chickenshits are really showing your "courage".

With you IDiots on UD, it really is about cowardice. Yours.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Speaking of genocide

How about 'the flood'?

According to the bible (the alleged word of god) god destroyed every living thing on Earth except for eight people and whatever pairs of animal "kinds" that fit on the alleged ark.

Ya know, that allegedly perfect, omnipotent, omniscient god sure is a fuckup. He obviously can't get anything right so he destroys what he allegedly designed and created and starts all over again. What an incompetent maroon.

stephenb believes that genocide is morally right (more added)

October 21, 2011 at 5:01 pm

—Petrushka: “Almost any basis for morality is superior to one that allows someone to claim that genocide can be justified by appeal to morality.”

How can you discern which moraltiy is superior to any other morality including your own, if you have no objective standard by which you can measure them all?

From here:


What the fuck is "objective" or sane about believing that a particular, imaginary god, who, according to the bible, orders and/or carries out genocide and other atrocities, is the right and only foundation for morality? Where does anyone get the idea that letting their morality be dictated by a belief in a mythical, monstrous, murderous god is the only right way to think and behave, AND that it places them way above people who don't practice the same, insane, self-righteous, sanctimonious, contradictory beliefs?

What a bunch of sick fucks.

All god zombies SUBJECTIVELY CHOOSE which imaginary god they want to believe in and worship (there are many choices as a matter of fact) and they SUBJECTIVELY CHOOSE the way they interpret and practice the variable, inconsistent, and contradictory dogma that is associated with that so-called god. There is NOTHING "objective" in that.

And it's nearly impossible to find even just two godbots who are members of the same religion who agree on every single aspect of their beliefs (including morals), and that's because they SUBJECTIVELY CHOOSE the particulars of what they want to believe and practice. Of course godbots who are members of different religions would disagree on many particulars and often on everything. There are approximately 40,000 christian denominations alone, plus all the other religions and their denominations or sects. There is no such thing as objectivity in any religious beliefs. It's ALL subjective.

poisoning the atmosphere with strawmen soaked in gordo's butt juice

October 21, 2011 at 9:19 am

F/N: Above the poisonous miasma of racism has been cast. Let us just say that the cases of Rahab [Canaanite] and Ruth [Moabite] — both of whom were ancestors of King David and thus of Jesus as well — suffice to demonstrate that RACE is not the issue, rather than syncreticism and assimilation to the corrupt pagan practices (as was actually a problem). It is time for a far more responsible reading of the texts in context by objectors.

From here:


gordo brings up Hitler and racism and then blames it on "objectors". Yeah, gordo, RACE is NOT the issue, so why are you bringing it up and why is joe-boi bringing it up? No so-called "objectors" brought it up in the first place and have even pointed out that it has nothing to do with race. You have used every dishonest trick possible to dodge the totally reasonable questions you've been asked and to avoid facing that you believe in and worship a so-called god that is depicted as a bloodthirsty monster in your own so-called holy book.

All of your insane rhetoric and accusations in that thread and any other you've ever participated in are what YOU are guilty of. You are totally and definitively what you constantly condemn. Your projection of your own evil, rotten thoughts and behavior onto others is a vivid picture of your malignant narcissism and utter insanity. The so-called Devil could take lessons from you in how to be more despicable and hate-worthy. The fact that you believe in and worship such a monstrous so-called god is proof positive that you are as vile, cruel, and deranged as he is depicted to be in religious texts.

Your alleged morality is based on a mythical, vicious monster and on the cruel, abhorrent thoughts, words, and actions of that monster. You are obviously capable of any crazed thought and action, and for society's sake and safety you should be immediately locked up in a carefully guarded asylum for the rest of your miserable life, and not be allowed to have any contact with the outside world. Your wife and children are certainly some of the most abused people on this planet, and while I don't feel sorry for your wife (unless she was somehow forced to marry you) I do feel sorry for your children for getting stuck with a deranged, dangerous, abusive maniac like you for a father.

You repeatedly and falsely accuse me of threatening your family while in reality it is YOU who is the threat to them. Your insanity and toxicity will ruin them, and very likely already has. Are you also sexually molesting your kids, and/or the children of other people? It wouldn't surprise me. That sort of behavior is common in extreme religious zealots like you. Frankly, I think that your public, extreme, religious insanity is a facade that you use to cover up your private, real thoughts and actions. ted haggard, and catholic child molesters come to mind.

All of this IDiot's DNA is junk

My responses are in bold type.

October 20, 2011 at 6:02 pm

Let Craig defend it himself (from your link):

“By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.”

This is not genocide. It is about moral judgment. If it were genocide, then God would not later judge Israel. Fail.

Well, my "moral judgement" is that you should be slaughtered, along with all of the other IDiotic god zombies on Earth, since you are debauched and cruel.

This is about a coward atheist who wrote a book about God and who then refuses to debate about God, (specifically the arguments he set forth in his book) in a scholarly arena in his own backyard because he does not have a sufficient argument to support his arguments. The same for his minions grayling, and polly t. This is telling. I wonder if it were the Christians hiding under their beds afraid to debate a single atheist, if the propaganda would be the same? Of course it would not be. It would be front page news in London: “Christians afraid to debate enlightened Atheist thinker!” Instead we have the opposite. I feel bad for all those that sold their faith based on Dawkins books. The man should at least have the courtesy to argue on their behalf. Instead, it is like the con-man selling snake oil at the county fair, takes your money then grins and scurries away.

That's hilarious coming from a sniveling coward who hides in the UD sanctuary with the rest of the chickenshit IDiots.
October 20, 2011 at 7:14 pm

“And having read that piece on the genocide of the Canaanites (which we must only hope is myth), I wouldn’t want to shake his hand either.”

Dawkins doesn’t need to shake his hand. Nor do you. WLC could care less where you people put your hands. WLC is calling out Dawkins to defend the arguments put forth in the book “God delusion,” in Oxford, in front of all Dawkins peers. But Dawkins, like a cockroach, knows how to survive, and is avoiding what would inevitably be a public stomping. Because the goal is not to argue and debate intellectual issues and seek truth, the goal is to sell his ideology anywhere he can with the least resistance.

And you IDiotic cockroaches don't try to sell your ideology in the UD sanctuary and on other sites that are heavily moderated or don't allow comments at all, so that you'll meet the least resistance? Tell you what, crybaby coward, why don't you come here and spew your IDiotic bluff and bluster so that I can publicly stomp you? Are you afraid? Are you shaking? Didn't your god give you any guts? Poor baby.
October 20, 2011 at 7:33 pm

“Fear or disgust? I see no reason to conclude “fear”.”

So a fighter that refuses to fight when called out does so out of disgust, not fear? A wuss is a wuss. Very simple.

Yep, very simple. You're undoubtedly a fearful wuss, hiding in the UD sanctuary.
October 20, 2011 at 8:23 pm

You have your wuss in Dawkins. enjoy.

You have your wuss in your mirror, and in the rest of the IDiot horde on UD. Enjoy, coward.

October 20, 2011 at 7:21 pm

If Dawkins is taking the moral high ground not debating WLC, then are the atheist that are standing in less moral than Dawkins?

What do you know about moral high ground? You, like your hero craig, condone and excuse the ruthless slaughter of people, in the name of your allegedly "loving", "merciful" god.
October 20, 2011 at 7:25 pm

It is amazing how atheists that have no basis for objective morality often utilize moral arguments.

Actually, what's amazing is that no one has punched what's left of your pea brain through the back of your skull yet. One can hope though.
October 20, 2011 at 7:41 pm

“Objectively, the Canaanite slaughter was evil.”

How are you determining an evil act? Based on what?

Your LACK of any understanding of morality is vividly showing.

October 20, 2011 at 7:57 pm

Was eliminating the Nazis immoral? Why or why not? Were the Nazis eliminated because they were German, and therefore evil, or were the Nazis German, that happened to be doing evil? Were the Canaanites destroyed because they were Canaanites and thus evil, or were the Canaanites destroyed because they were Canaanites engaging in evil? Do we look at WWII as the genocide of Germans and Japanese? Or the genocide of Jews? Was the destruction of the Jews moral or immoral? Was the destruction of the German Nazis moral or immoral?

Trying to divert attention away from the relevant points and questions doesn't do your condoning of ruthless slaughter any good. I think that you are evil, amoral, and immoral, so is it okay if I slaughter you, your family, and everyone else that is anything like you? Should I sharpen my sword?
October 22, 2011 at 12:04 am


In what manner should a Canaanite culture engaging in child sacrifice, (along with other nefarious activities) be dealt with? Keep in mind the department of social services, the police, the courts, foster care and the threat of nuclear exchange did not exist then.

It’s easy to monday morning quarterback this thing.

Oh, so you're admitting that your allegedly omnipotent, omniscient god couldn't think of a way to deal with the Canaanites, including their children, (people he allegedly designed and created) other than to order them to be ruthlessly slaughtered? Did your god just want to watch and enjoy a bloodbath? Was he wanking his pud while watching it? Serial killers are known to get sexual gratification from watching people suffer and die, and your chosen god, according to your own so-called holy book, is the most prolific and sadistic serial killer of all time. He must do a lot of wanking.

Friday, October 21, 2011

The shining brilliance of joe-boi

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Elizabeth Liddle
October 21, 2011 at 9:31 am

Races can do evil, Elizabeth.

Which ones, Joseph?
October 21, 2011 at 11:08 am

Any race that was brought up to do so.
Elizabeth Liddle
October 21, 2011 at 11:16 am

October 21, 2011 at 11:22 am

They have all been killed off. :)
October 21, 2011 at 11:23 am

Any race that lived by darwinian rules…
October 21, 2011 at 11:38 am

Who was killed off? Give a name.
October 21, 2011 at 12:39 pm

Homo jerkian evilitus

grounded in insanity

October 20, 2011 at 9:12 pm

Timbo And I keep wondering, just where do you atheists ground morality?

Cruel Logic – video


Well, phil cunningham, it's obvious where you and the rest of the IDiotic god zombies ground your so-called morality: In your belief in and worship of a god who is depicted in your so-called holy book as a man, woman, and child slaughtering, culture destroying, torturing, animal sacrificing, people sacrificing, world destroying, sadistic, threatening, evil, jealous, self-righteous, paranoid, braggadocios, pompous, arrogant, narcissistic, selfish, hateful, petty, inept, monstrous, dishonest, impotent, adulterous, vile, greedy, childish, incest promoting, destructive, hypocritical, shallow, ignorant, weird, insane, sneaky, twisted, short-sighted, demanding, clumsy, unprepared, poorly planning, knowledge deficient, narrow-minded, bullying, despicable, freedom stifling control freak.

Yep, you IDiots are chips off the old block.

joe-boi the racist condones the slaughter of children

October 21, 2011 at 6:35 am

But which is more evil- genocide of a race that is doing evil to humanity or allowing the evil to grow unfettered?
Elizabeth Liddle
October 21, 2011 at 6:40 am

“Races” don’t “do evil” Joseph. People do. People who ascribe evil-doing to a “race” are called “racists”.

The Nazis, for instance.
October 21, 2011 at 6:53 am

Races can do evil, Elizabeth.

October 21, 2011 at 6:47 am

Assuming this is true, why was it necessary to kill the children end the culture?

October 21, 2011 at 6:54 am

pfft- Ask God


And to think that joe-boi has children. Maybe someone should slaughter him, his wife, his children, all his other relatives, and everyone of his race so that their evil to humanity is not allowed to grow unfettered. How about it, joe? Does that sound like a moral, loving-god supported, reasonable thing to do?

By the way, is shit a "race"? Because you, joe-boi, are shit.

gordon elliott mullings of Manjack Heights, Montserrat condones genocide

My responses are in bold type.

markf posted this:

October 21, 2011 at 1:17 am

What I want to know is if the Christians on this forum think that killing the Caanite children was morally acceptable or praiseworthy.

There seem to be a lot of responses on the lines of atheists do even worse things or how can anyone condemn things who have no real basis for morality. Neither of these are relevant to this question. This is a question about the morality of this act and about Christians, not atheists. Christians presumably believe they have real basis for morality. Does this basis approve of the killing of the Caananite children?

And this is how gordo responded to it:

October 21, 2011 at 6:14 am


October 21, 2011 at 6:16 am

Directed to MF, who is taking the venom to the next step.

Elizabeth Liddle responded to that with:

Elizabeth Liddle
October 21, 2011 at 6:21 am

OK, I guess we’d all better take five. I am utterly puzzled though. I’d have thought that most Christians would find Craig’s piece seriously problematic. I simply cannot understand why being appalled by it should be considered “venomous”, or “slander”, and I cannot see a single lie in Markf’s post.

And markf said:
October 21, 2011 at 6:36 am

I am trying to work out how a question can be a lie!

To which gordo said:
October 21, 2011 at 7:16 am

When it is accusatory and laced with invidious insinuations, as you full well know.


That from a guy (gordo), a self-proclaimed christian, who falsely accuses me of threatening his family (and other things), falsely accuses evolutionists/Darwinists/materialists/atheists/etc. of every horrible thing that his demented mind can think of, constantly tells lies and slanders anyone who questions or disagrees with him, and who makes constant "invidious insinuations" against and about anyone who doesn't blindly and eagerly worship him and his imaginary, monstrous, murderous god.

A little further down in that thread gordo says (in reference to markf's completely reasonable question):
October 21, 2011 at 7:42 am


(By way of explanation of my resort to language I do not lightly use: On fair comment, to snip a man struggling with a difficulty out of context and project on him a false caricature is slander. To project that slander by poisonous questions unto an entire class of people who one knows or should know better about is a willful misrepresentation, one of the subtler forms of lying — often unconsciously indulged. Sadly, it took shouting in effect to get attention for at least a moment from one who studiously refuses correction on flimsy excuses.)

What a pile of rancid shit gordo is, and the so-called "man" that he's referring to and zealously supporting is the genocide condoning William Lane Craig.

If anyone thinks...

...that I've been hard on gordon e mullings of Montserrat and the rest of the IDiots on UD before, just wait until you see how I treat them from now on.

Check out this thread:

It's a great example of just how evil and rotten the IDiots truly are, and I do mean evil and rotten to the core. gordo is leading the bloodthirsty pack, although the other IDiots are showing their true colors too. Those guys are as despicable as anyone could possibly be. They are sadistic, vile, ruthless, murder condoning monsters and racists. The contempt I have for them is immeasurable. Expect to see several threads here about their remarks in that thread on UD.

I suggest that any of you who are appalled by the IDiots on UD to copy all of the remarks by the IDiots as they appear in that thread so that if they're deleted (to cover their asses) there will be a record of what they have said, and if any are deleted I would appreciate you posting them here in a comment.

caroline crocker, just another two-faced IDiot

In this OP...

...crocker is quoted as saying:

"Whether evolution, in all its glory, is true or not does not rock my world. However, when speakers at Christian groups who say that they are open to honest discussion demean those with whom they disagree, that does—and thus I object."


Hey crocker, why doesn't it rock your world and why don't you "object" when the christians at UD constantly "demean those with whom they disagree" even though they say that they "welcome open and honest discussion"? Well?

Two-faced wusses

October 20, 2011 at 4:35 pm

Dawkins won’t debate Craig for the same reason he would not debate Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. Dawkins is an intellectual coward. He hurls taunts from columns. That is equivalent to a child acting brave from behind his mommy’s dress tail.

October 20, 2011 at 4:58 pm


The above — sadly, but tellingly — is a blatant well-poisoning, atmosphere-poisoning distractive fallacy to cover up that Dawkins plainly realises he would be crushed in an open debate with Craig.

October 20, 2011 at 5:03 pm

Poor Dawkins…it’s clear he didn’t want to debate Craig because he FEARS him. He knows he can’t refute Craig’s arguments nor can he defend his own. Dawkins is more mouse than lion.
October 20, 2011 at 7:33 pm

“Fear or disgust? I see no reason to conclude “fear”.”

So a fighter that refuses to fight when called out does so out of disgust, not fear? A wuss is a wuss. Very simple.
October 20, 2011 at 8:23 pm

You have your wuss in Dawkins. enjoy.

Clive Hayden
October 21, 2011 at 1:01 am

Moral outrage from those who claim no real basis for morality, that believe the whole show is an accident, always tickle me.

I guess Dawkins doesn’t want to debate this topic either with Craig. Let’s be honest, Dawkins is scared to debate Craig, that’s obvious. If Dawkins thinks he has such a blatant moral high ground, why not debate Craig?

And more here:


All that bluff and bluster from FEARFUL CHILDISH WUSSES who "hide behind" their "mommy’s dress tail" in the heavily moderated UD sanctuary and won't argue their position on an open forum.

Hey wusses, I'm calling you out! All of you! Come here and "debate" me! Also, let's see you ALL argue your position, without running away like the scared chickenshits you are, on an open forum where you cannot control the moderation. Come on wusses, show me what you've got!

Also notice all of the excuses for craig and his statement about the slaughter of men, women, and children ordered by his chosen god. And don't forget that those are the people who claim to have the corner on morality. Not even one of them condemns the slaughter of children. For them, since their god ordered it, it's A-OK!

In that thread gordo brings me up again and accuses me (and Elizabeth Liddle and evolutionists/Darwinist/materialists/etc.) of all kinds of amoral, venemous stuff, while HE continues to knowingly, outrageously, and willfully LIE about me threatening his family, and while he continues to FALSELY accuse anyone who doesn't kiss his sanctimonious ass of all kinds of horrible things that HE is actually guilty of. No one could be a bigger hypocrite than gordo, and no one could be a more blatant liar.

He always makes a big stink about his opponents substantiating their opinions or claims. He should actually substantiate his own opinion or claims, starting with his dishonest claims about me threatening his family! Hey gordee-the-LIAR, where YOUR substantiation, you stinking, no good for anything, mentally deranged mass of festering butt juice?