AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: the_ignored

form_srcid: the_ignored

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: the_ignored

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'the_ignored%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2010/12/29 06:18:42, Link
Author: the_ignored
Wow.  This is coming from the guy who defends maritial and date rape?

In case you're still not convinced of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of atheism, consider this list of what atheists believe to be "the big guns" of the best atheist quotes.

Now, some holy spirit-inspired modesty:

First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I'd have to ignore nearly everyone.

Date: 2010/12/30 11:01:07, Link
Author: the_ignored
What the hell?  Shouldn't this tell you something?

Check his comment at 12/30/10 5:38 AM
The whole reason I have not presented many public arguments for theism or Christianity is that I am not satisfied with their soundness yet.

Date: 2011/01/03 07:05:43, Link
Author: the_ignored
Gotta love that xian "morality" on display.

As I have repeatedly explained to the sort of maleducated overestimator of his own intelligence that actually believes that there is a genuine dilemma to be found in Euthyphro, the essence of morality is, and has always been, God's Game, God's Rules. Therefore, no God = no Rules.

Yep, he's confirmed once again, that for xian, nothing counts as a reson to be moral (not the pain and suffering of others, the consequences for society in general, etc) nothing but that sky-daddy watching over them.

All "no god" means, is that we're left to devise our own rules.

And to think, that his post is entitled the "amoral essence of atheism"?

Man, I hope people like him never deconvert.

Date: 2011/01/04 09:55:42, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 03 2011,08:20)
Vox and I are having fun: Religious fitness and science education. Starting at 1/1/11 11:58 AM.

I like how the man's wife (spacebunny) is sticking up for him, even though he's such a misogynistic little prick.  

Can anyone here explain that?

Date: 2011/01/04 10:09:38, Link
Author: the_ignored
Wow, the man accuses olegt of "reading comprehension problems"?

He should remember the trouble he had with this, from his blog entryhere?

(forgive the crosspost)

Date: 2011/01/09 18:46:23, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 05 2011,19:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 05 2011,13:30)
Hey Joe

Here's a good question for you... since you are wise (ahem) in the ways of ID.

If the designer is, as Behe, suggests time-travelling cell-biologists, then who designed them?

If the designer is, as others suggest, aliens, then who designed them?

In fact, with all but two choices, we have to ask the question who designed them?

So, my question is, which is the designer?  God -or- do we live in the Matrix?

Interesting conundrum for someone who professes to not believe in God.  

Can I assume you think we are all simulations in a computer system?

That reminds me of a friend who had problems with evolution.  Wasn't really religious, he thought that we were the products of design by aliens, but he thought that they might have evolved.  When I asked why they might have evolved but we didn't, he really couldn't answer.  He seemed to think that it was somehow easier for things to evolve elsewhere than here - made no sense to me at all.  At least he didn't go the "designers all the way down" route. ???

You know, I think that the time traveling cell biologists theory has some weight:  Only the ID people didn't seem to care for it when that theory was first propose

Date: 2011/01/10 15:04:43, Link
Author: the_ignored
HuH?  Olegt's "arrogant assholery"?  Do they not bloody read what Vox puts out?

First, if I only limited myself to those of my intellectual weight class, I'd have to ignore nearly everyone.

Dont' his syophants realize that he's zinging them as well?  Or do they all consider themselves to be in his "intellectual weight class"?

Then there's the man's posts about rape, that we all know about.

WTF is wrong with them?

Date: 2011/01/15 17:09:49, Link
Author: the_ignored
I gave him an email warning him to be careful of Vox's tricks:

I understand that you're going to be taking part in a debate on Vox Day's blog (

I'd be careful. He is not above twisting people's words just to take a shot at science or anything else that he doesn't like.

One such example was discussed here:

(, in reference to Vox's post here:


He thanked me in his reply and said that he'd be careful.  So far though, it's been clean over there he says.

Date: 2011/01/15 17:32:11, Link
Author: the_ignored
Seems I can't start a new topic, so I'll just post this here if that's ok

I had a run-in with Sarfati some time ago:  I went to the Creationist meeting (the Tuesday October 26, 2010, 7:00pm, Grace Point Church of God, 720 62nd St SW, Edmonton. (AB) one).

Right after work I took off to the church where Sarfati was speaking. I missed the initial lecture but he had a book-signing then another short speech/Q&A combo.

My first question had to do with this.

I pointed out that several people, right off the get-go defined vestigial organs as not necessarily meaning having "NO" function. His response? He basically kept repeating the accusation. I told him he was acting like he was ignoring the answer. We got back and forth; he mentioned the "guttersite" Talk Origins, probably because he saw me reading from a paper the references (you can see some in my comment here that I was making.

I asked him where he got off on calling them "guttersnipes" or something like that; he said that he called them a "guttersite". I said that was worse.

He said that Talk Origins was an "antichristian" site, I told him that it wasn't true: Christians like Glen Morton post there. He insulted him, belittled their "christianity" or something like that..

Anyway, he kept to saying that scientists have been trying to change the definition of "vestigial" because uses kept getting found for them while I had said that they were consistent all along, the dictionary buggered up or something.

My second question:

After listening him do the "Expelled" routine of blaming all sorts of anti-semitic crap on Darwin and showing some Nazi footage (that he said was in the "Expelled" movie), I asked him if he knew that Martin Luther (the guy he praised earlier) wrote On the Jews and Their Lies.

He said he did, but that he had virtually nothing to do with the nazis: Luther was only anti-semitic as the end of his life when they refused his arguments.

I asked him: What did Darwin ever say about the Jews? He went on about how it was "darwinist" scientists or something who went for that; you'll notice that he didn't actually answer that question. I (think) I pointed out that it was Luther that Hitler admired, etc.

I said that there's a lot of stuff here; and mentioned a Christian site: Ray Comfort's Atheist Central site and if he'd heard of him. He said he hadn't, I said that maybe it was because Comfort was from New Zealand, some in the audience liked that.

Anyway, I mentioned this post where Comfort reviewed the "Expelled" movie, and that it said all the things Sarfati said. I said: Read down the comments and you'll see the commentators refuted that (or something like that)...fortunately I got cut off before I could mention that my name is where one would find all that.

If anyone there actually remembers and gives a shit, they can go to that site and just read through and see for themselves what I wanted them to see anyway. I really didn't want those berks to know my name anyhow!

We got into another argument and the church people finally got pissed off enough (I should consider myself lucky they let me go on this long, really) muttering "Next, next".

It had no effect on me other than to make me duck my head and say something that I'm damned glad the mike didn't pick up, but Sarfati and the "light" guy did eventually end it and go on to the next questioner.

**This is how stupid I am...I rembered, way afterwards, the perfect question to have asked him during that argument. Sod it! What would it have been?

Pointing out what Sarfati once called a fellow Jew:
secular misochristic Jew

With all his talk of "darwinists" leading to nazism, it'd have been great to throw that ancient, xian anti-jewish curse back at him. Sigh...damnit.

Unlike a previous guy who took off after some @@@hole in the audience went nuts on him (Sarfati actually had to hold that guy back), I figured:  I'm staying till the end. The last thing I want is for these clowns to clap while I'm leaving or something. So, I sat until the end.

I had a nice talk with a sympathetic guy afterwards. I told him
-more detail about what I had posted on Comfort's site and which name to look for it

-how the various posters on Comfort's site keep pasting him, especially some guy named Steven J. The example I gave was the evolution of genders "problem", etc.

-how some xians like Roger C. Weins (yes, I spelled the guy's name wrong when I spelled it out to this fellow) has an article called Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective that he could Google to see how Sarfati's talk of radiometric dating gets dealt with

-how if actual historians and scientists were in the crowd that the questions would have been a lot more hostile to Sarfati, etc.

He did say that Sarfati had a sympathetic audience at the church.

He, his wife, and some other guy hung around us while we talked. Kind of sad though: Only me and him talked and we never introduced ourselves to each other or to the other people, really.

Oh well: Those other people didn't speak up themselves, they just listened.

So, other than those two problems I mentioned, how could I have handled that better?

Date: 2011/01/15 17:36:38, Link
Author: the_ignored
Forgot:  It's detailed here where Sarfati called the ADL's Foxman a "secular misochristic Jew".

Date: 2011/01/16 11:50:02, Link
Author: the_ignored
I remember that I tried to mention Dagobert Runes, the guy who wrote "On the Jew and the Cross" as well as some other books detailing the historical anti-semitism of Sarfati's adopted religion.  I mentioned the guy's name and that his mother was in a concentration camp and I was going to mention the book titles, but Sarfi cut me off, saying that some guy who he (or the "Expelled" people used as a source?) was himself supposed to be a camp survivor.  

He was quite brusque at that point...I wonder if he knew what I was about to say.  Pisses me off that I let him cut me off like that.

Meh, I'm new at this.

Date: 2011/01/16 21:35:01, Link
Author: the_ignored
Hoo boy.  Here we go again.  When Beale isn't bragging about how smart he is, he's going on about how stupid atheists are.

Does that asshole not know the meaning of the words ad hom?

Even funnier, for that little bit of theistic social autism, he links to an "unbiased" outside source.

Date: 2011/01/22 10:17:52, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 21 2011,17:53)
At Weasel Zippers

I gotta believe PZ posts this kind of shit for attention...I can't believe anyone can actually be as vile as he is.  But, then even posting it for attention is sick beyond belief.

"meat".....good Lord, he needs his head examined.  On the bright side though, from what I've read, Skatje has somewhat changed her stance on abortion. From hard core leftist thinking to actually having a heart about the issue.  Yeah for Skatje!  Maybe she should have left the nest a long time ago.

Let me guess:  You're one of those evangelicals who has no problem with the killing of pregnant women and babies as ordered by your god in the OT, nor with any spontaneous abortions that happen now, right?

Even Myers, as "vile" as you say he is, would not ever do anything like that.

Yet you still call yourself "pro-life"?

If I'm wrong about the above please let me know so that I may apologize.

Date: 2011/01/22 10:29:58, Link
Author: the_ignored
Looks like voxyboy is jumping onto that same so-called "pro-life" bandwagon.

My reply: at 1/22/11 10:24 AM
Vox said:
It's probably a good thing he is an atheist without any moral standards, otherwise he might demonstrate at least a modicum of conscience for the bloody acts in which he appears to take such pride.
Right, coming from one of those who worships the same god who, in the OT, repeatedly had pregnant women and babies killed...

Yep. It's us atheists who have no moral standards.

Here's a tip, Theodore:  follow your own holy book's advice about taking the log out of your own eye before attending to the splinter in someone else's.

Gotta love that good ol' fashined xian moral absolutism!

Date: 2011/01/23 13:32:37, Link
Author: the_ignored
Well, I tried one long post, only to have it f**d up by "coo-coo comment" so I posted the following right after that in three small posts.  Totally kills the effect though, damnit!

Oh well.  

Easily. God's game, God's rules. The Creator sets the moral standard, He does not abide by it.
If so, then how can one make any judgements as to god's "morality" one way or the other?  If he does something that we consider evil, that isn't allowed to count, but when he does something we consider good, that's used as evidence that he's "holy" (whatever the hell that means!) or "good".  

You can't have it both ways.  What you describe is a fundamentally hypocritical being who refuses to follow the rules he sets for others.

What moral standard does he follow then, and how could you tell that he does?

Not being the Creator or the referee, you have no more standing to criticize who is or is not killed than a cornerback has to decide whether a flag is thrown for pass interference or not.
Well, one thing:  In sports one can see the action that one is arguing about whether it took place or not.  While we're talking about (supposed) physical actions, we're arguing about the morality of them.  

Analogy fail.

You'll notice that NFL coaches often stand on the field during a play, and yet no flags are ever thrown for 12 men on the field.
Usually those coaches aren't killing people though, unlike your god.  Get a better analogy.

Do you understand why there is no contradiction or hypocrisy there?
No, because there is.  It's a plain double-standard.

This isn't rocket science;...
No, it's religious apologetic gerrymandering, which is more twisted by far than any branch or application of the physical sciences.

...even an atheist should be able to grasp the analogy. And it is both ironic and ignorant for you to accuse a religious individual of being self-righteous; it is the atheist who actually claims to be self-righteous.
Wrong.  We just don't advocate mass genocide like your god does, and then run around pretending to be "pro-life".

If protesting genocide makes one self-righteous in your eyes, so be it.  Given your "moral" stances, especially on certain women's issues (later below) your opinion of me means less to me than used toilet paper.  Though like a certain poster here from another forum, it is fun to come in here every once in a while...

The Christian theological position is that no one is self-righteous, in fact, no one is even capable of being self-righteous, since they can only justified through Jesus Christ.
Actually, the Christian position is that no one is righteous, not "no one is self-righeous".  Self-righteous just describes an attitude.

By the way, what do you think Christ's opinions on rape would be, Theo?


I somehow doubt that your friend PZ Myers would share your views on rape, so I guess that means that he's less "moral" than you?

So go ahead; demonize Myers and athiests in general for being "pro-choice" (even though not all of us are), and in your minds committing the murders of babies which your own god repeatedly does, and keep calling yourselves "moral".  That voxytoad, is true self-righteousness.

If what you say here (, where if there is no God then there are no Rules, I have news for you:  It's xians like you who have no morals, not us.  Societies devise rules, gods or no gods.

Did your father's insanity get passed on to you or something?

I'd feel sorry for you, being raised by that nutcase, but you're just as much of, if not worse, of a jackass then he ever was.  

Too bad you have an ego that's too big for your head.  All that talk about how smart you are, yet you have trouble designing a simple computer mouse?  Christ would be proud of your modesty, I'm sure!

To Spacebunny
Let's see:  Myers is cowardly is he?  He publishes a blog under his real name, with a picture and contact details.

What's your name, picture, and contact information, hmmm?  Remember:  You called him a coward.  Put your money where your mouth is, honey.

He also, despite your husband's prediction, publically desecrated a Koran, a cracker, and a copy of one of Dawkin's books. (

Vox's "prediction":  (

But the ecumenicality of Myers's willingness to commit sacrilege entirely beside the point, as what actually demonstrates the cowardly nature of this self-aggrandizing atheist is the fact that there is no chance that he will follow through on his anti-cracker threats now that it is clear there may be material consequences, however minor, to his actions

Date: 2011/01/24 12:24:43, Link
Author: the_ignored
Forgive me, but doesn't it seem that arguing with "Ftk" over abortion has gone slightly off the thread topic?

Date: 2011/01/24 13:53:25, Link
Author: the_ignored
This is great:  On that post about abortion and PZ Myers it seems that "Spacebunny" has decided that her hubby needs help.

Little twit just doesn't know when to leave well enough alone.  Though the same could be said of me.  :p

Date: 2011/01/25 04:13:46, Link
Author: the_ignored
Then, like PZ, you are also a cold-hearted scumbag with no empathy.

If that was the case, then he would not give a rat's ass about all the child sexual abuse cases the catholic church is responsible for.  Those victims you see, were unambigiously human, already having developed enough to be born and live.

With a few week old fetus, which doesn't even have a nervous system that can feel pain, or have any kind of consciousness, it's not quite so clear.

Some people regard it as "fully human" (the faux pro-lifers of religious bent) and some atheist pro-lifers like myself, even if they're not fully developed yet.

Think of it this way:  Do you have the same feelings when you open up an egg to cook it as when you see that unborn bird fall?

Date: 2011/01/25 17:22:43, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 25 2011,15:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 25 2011,15:38)
What I find interesting is that adament pro-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of egg and sperm or offer a picture of a zygote.

What I find interesting is that adament anti-choice advocates usually only refer to abortion in terms of waving posters showing miscarriages and pretending they represent abortions outside clinics.

Wait, what?

Date: 2011/02/01 06:40:46, Link
Author: the_ignored
Looks like Vox is trying to toss a few positive spins on his warmouse again...

Date: 2011/02/02 17:14:40, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 02 2011,11:07)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2011,11:16)
I'm a "pack animal".

I've overly moody today, so I should probably not take another glance at VD's posts about women.  Sometimes, though, I take great joy in knowing that if we were ever to meet, I would physically tower over him.

do you think he would flinch if you scratched your head or moved suddenly

are you amazonian or is lil teddy lilliputian

All of a sudden, FtK just became interesting to me.

*ducks, runs away*

Date: 2011/02/07 10:16:33, Link
Author: the_ignored
Now Vox is complaining about how atheists "whine" about being persecuted.

Odd, I was thinking that same thing about the christians in the west...

Date: 2011/02/17 13:42:24, Link
Author: the_ignored
Nice choice he lays out here:

Rather than pursue the obvious solution and keep women out of the military, the social engineers who have succeeded in getting so many women raped by men who are specifically trained to overcome their societal and moral taboos about not killing other people is to attempt to remove those who refuse to abide by societal taboos from the military. So, it should be interesting to see what their proposed solution for Egyptians rape-mobs is.

But the most interesting thing about the Logan incident is the way it is a metaphorical lesson on the choice facing Western women between three different futures: a) a return to traditional Christian culture, b) rape and the brothel, or c) submission and the burqah.

Note that here he's finally speaking out against rape...I guess it only counts as such if it's done by someone you've never met before?

Date: 2011/02/23 17:55:47, Link
Author: the_ignored
Ironically enough, he does is while criticizing atheist's logic (and motivations, and personalities, etc).  Just read, you'll see what I mean.

Fallacy:  Consequences of belief.

Oddly, it seems that the studies he talks about mention any religion, not just his.  What does that say about the validity of his particular religion?

If one is going to criticize other's critical thinking skills, shouldn't one make sure that he's not using logical fallacies himself?

Date: 2011/02/23 18:19:08, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (the_ignored @ Feb. 23 2011,17:55)
Ironically enough, he does this little attack of his while criticizing atheist's logic (and motivations, and personalities, etc).  Just read, you'll see what I mean.

Fallacy:  Consequences of belief.

Oddly, it seems that the studies he talks about mention any religion, not just his.  What does that say about the validity of his particular religion?

If one is going to criticize other's critical thinking skills, shouldn't one make sure that he's not using logical fallacies himself?

Yep, I meant to fix that, so I'll fix it here.

Date: 2011/02/26 01:24:36, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (dochocson @ Feb. 25 2011,22:43)
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 25 2011,19:32)
How long will this last?

Odds are it won't appear at all.

If it does, it will be used to demonstrate how uncivil Darwinists are.

Also, if it is posted, I predict that KF will show up clutching his pearls and wailing about "slander" (I think he means libel, but legal definitions may be different in Montserrat).

Good thing you saved it...Your comment is gone now.

Date: 2011/02/26 01:51:43, Link
Author: the_ignored
I don't even get a "your comment is awaiting moderation".  It just never shows up.


Date: 2011/08/29 08:09:01, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,14:03)
the ignored:

Hi...hey, I have an interesting book for you to read if you get the time.  I just started it recently, and I think you might get a kick out of it.  Something else you can rail about at least.  

It's titled "If God is Good...Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil".   Author is Randy Alcorn

It provides a different perspective...always good to consider both sides of any argument.

Pick it up at the library so you don't have to support the author by paying for it.  


I know, I'm real late with this reply; I haven't been here for a long time, but FTK, that guy deals with the suffering of life in general, I'm talking about god-ordained homicide.

Again, how a person can call themselves "pro-life" and pretend to be aghast at what Myers said and yet have no problem with god-ordained infanticide is beyond me.

Bottom line:  the doctors who work at, and the women who go to, abortion clinics have every moral right to call you out for the moral hypocrite you are, FtK, and to tell you to go fuck yourself.

Date: 2011/08/29 08:19:31, Link
Author: the_ignored
At least not all christians go for Day's attitude.  Note how depresses she is that Day is supported so much by xian males.

Date: 2011/08/29 12:41:28, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,12:19)
Quote (the_ignored @ Aug. 29 2011,08:09)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 23 2011,14:03)
the ignored:

Hi...hey, I have an interesting book for you to read if you get the time.  I just started it recently, and I think you might get a kick out of it.  Something else you can rail about at least.  

It's titled "If God is Good...Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil".   Author is Randy Alcorn

It provides a different perspective...always good to consider both sides of any argument.

Pick it up at the library so you don't have to support the author by paying for it.  


I know, I'm real late with this reply; I haven't been here for a long time, but FTK, that guy deals with the suffering of life in general, I'm talking about god-ordained homicide.

Again, how a person can call themselves "pro-life" and pretend to be aghast at what Myers said and yet have no problem with god-ordained infanticide is beyond me.

Bottom line:  the doctors who work at, and the women who go to, abortion clinics have every moral right to call you out for the moral hypocrite you are, FtK, and to tell you to go fuck yourself.

It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.

There are so many outstanding examples of living a moral life throughout the Bible.  I've honestly thought back on them sooo many times in my life when similiar things may happen to me that I need to work through.

But, since this is a place where God's word seems to be a thorn in the foot, I'll toss out yet another article that explains why what God command needed to be carried out.  

It seems ridiculous to me that since you believe a few stories are immoral according to what *you* consider might have been occuring at the time, that you dismiss the entire book null and void.  You aren't God, you werent' there, and you have no idea.  

Here's your LINK

Where did I say that it makes the entire bible null and void?  

What those instances do however is show that your god even as portrayed in his own holy book is not a moral being.

Yes, I've read stuff like that posted on that site before...nothing new.

Date: 2011/08/29 12:54:28, Link
Author: the_ignored
From that link that FtK gave me: the guy says that  
"...only those who had actively demonstrated their integrity could be saved"
.  Uh, how in fuck could a baby "actively demonstrate" integrity?

The hell?  And yet you pretend to care about children when Myers talks about abortion?  At least most abortions are done at a developmental point before they can feel pain.

And here is a true kicker:  
Why didn't God translate the children into heaven instead of having them die by the sword? Since the children lived in a world affected by sin, they faced its earthly consequences (Rom 5:12-14). Only a few righteous people were translated into heaven, namely Enoch (Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 Ki 2:11). As noted above, since the children had not shown themselves to be righteous, they were not spared the common fate of death.

It's worth noting that being killed with a sword (perhaps beheaded) was at the time one of the quickest ways for the children to die (as opposed to suffocation/strangulation, starvation, disease or being torn apart by wild animals - see Ex 23:28-29).

So again, because the kids were too young to prove their innocence, basically, god just said "fuck em" and to hell with any idea of a merciful "translation" into heaven, just kill them and be done with it.

You stupid, stupid little bint.  Do you have any idea how many god-fucking times I have heard this shit?!

Here's the reality:  Morality evolves over time.  Back then, survival was the name of the gods to help people out.  When groups of people came into conflict over resources or whatnot, they wiped each other out and they couldn't afford to spare the kids.

With the advent of agriculture, trade, formation of communities, etc those kinds of actions became less and less necessary.  So those actions gradually became outlawed.  People could afford to be more generous, more merciful.

Problem:  The same god that was worshiped back then is still worshiped now, at a time when such actions would be abhorred.  So, you people are left trying to justify those barbaric actions while still claiming to hold to our ethical values.

Date: 2011/08/29 17:13:23, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,13:07)
Do you know how many times I've heard all of *your* rationalizations for your beliefs?  We all know the score.  You choose to reject an ultimate Creator, I choose to accept.  Amen...that's it.  period.

I offer no more rationalizing or apologetics than all of you do both in regard to religion as well as Darwinian evolution. And, yes, I classify them in the same category in this instance because your "facts" are based on assumption and rationalization.  NOT science.

I call you names because, quite frankly, you earn them.  For one who claims to have "absolute" morality and who calls herself "pro-life" it's damned jarring to see you turn around and defend god-ordained child-killing.  My explanation for the development of morality fits reality a fuck of a lot better.

As for evolution not being based on science?  

Only in your fantasy world.  Read and learn something.

Date: 2011/08/29 17:32:27, Link
Author: the_ignored
Hey guys, should I be honoured or ashamed?  It seems that Vox has now dedicated an entire post to me.

Date: 2011/08/29 19:37:52, Link
Author: the_ignored
I do reply to the guy, showing how he lies about me not answering his questions, and I do ask him some questions of my own.

But FUCK!  That commenting system over there keeps fucking up my replies!  The previews look good but when I submit...

Oy,   At least my message gets across but I have to admit it really loses credibility (whether justified or not) to have that keep happening.  

Oh well, I think I'm done over there anyway.

Date: 2011/08/29 22:01:03, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,21:33)
Ogre, I don't even know how to respond to your posts.  They seems so absurd to me that it's hard to fathom what is going on in your head.  I don't mean to be rude, I'm just saying that what we've read and how we view it is so entirely different that I have no idea how to even discuss the issues with you.  

Just for the record.  I've read every word of the Bible many times, as well as sat through a 2 year study that went through every word of the Bible.  My current Pastor encourages everyone to bring their Bible each Sunday as we go through several verses or chapters each week.  The next 12 weeks we will be covering the book of John.  I'm not Catholic, so maybe you're picturing something entirely different than what we hear each Sunday.  I've been a member of 6 different churches and visited many others.  It's impossible for me to understand how you can read scripture and come to the conclusions that you do.  It's as though you scan and pull out what you feel is repulsive and skim through the rest without a thought.  

So much of what you claim God commanded was actually stories telling about what happened to Biblical figures thoughout their life.  They made good choices, they made mistakes, they weren't perfect.  We learn from their history. That's the beauty of the Bible.  It's characters were far from perfect, which gives us hope as well.  

I'm sorry, but I don't get you. at all.

Thing is, Ftk is that SOME of those situations were commanded by your god (allegedly).  I am a non-believer after all.

Now, about us "skimming through the rest without a thought" after finding something that we don't like?  Please.

If one applied your reasoning to the actions of Hitler one could say that he only looks bad because his opponents "pulled out what was repulsive" and "skimmed through the rest without a thought".

Get the point yet?  Good actions do not cancel out the bad actions, not when a claim of perfect morality is being made.

Date: 2011/08/30 17:04:43, Link
Author: the_ignored
Also, we know that those tribes didn't have any god to help take care of their needs.  You people supposedly did.  So if not, why didn't he help them out to provide resources to help take care of say, the infants of the people their "god" told them to kill.

Date: 2011/09/03 11:28:47, Link
Author: the_ignored
For the record, these are what I tried posting on Vox's site: though my browser or something keeps mutilating my comments:

Answer this question. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did?

"Technological advancement almost completely frozen"?  Their space program sent a satellite and a man in space before the americans did. They got the bomb (atomic and hydrogen) very soon after the states did.

"Completely frozen"?  Not always.  Only when their ideology ruled the day.  For example, that Lysenko guy didn't believe in the chromosomal theory of heredity and got Stalin convinced of his views, and from there on, their agriculture got screwed.  As well, many geneticists were executed.  

Science has to be free to go wherever the evidence leads, that's how science works.  It won't work if you suppress it!

I further note that your argument that one must know science to create technology is disproven by your own statements. You previously asserted that I know less science than a fifth-grader, and yet I have been a successful, ground-breaking professional technology designer for 20 years.

So a second question: is science unnecessary for technological development or am I, in fact, a master of science?

Let's look at some of your "groundbreaking" work shall we?  The one game that you designed by yourself bombed, and other games like Rebel Moon Rising didn't seem to do very well.

Care to explain just what ground you broke?

As for new or "ground-breaking" ideas, how's the "Failmouse" uh, sorry "Warmouse" thing working out?  

Science is necessary for technological development and you're not a "master" of anything.

Speaking of you and PZ Myers, didn't you once say that Myers didn't have the guts to go through with his cracker desecration idea?
The saltines are safe, for just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there is no vow that the militant atheist will not violate if he perceives any risk to his material well-being.

"No athiests in foxholes"?  Really?

So, less than one full day and you go and make a post about how I have not answered any of your questions?  

Not only is that impatient as hell, but that's dishonest.  I have answered several of your questions.  
You just find some excuse to disregard them (see your post above) and then claim that I've never answered them.

I was warned that you were a dishonest prick, looks like they were right.  

From the previous post:
2. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did? (Your attempt to argue that Soviet technology was essentially equal to the USA is false.)

Did you miss the reason I gave about what happened when ideology got thrown into the mix?

"Contradictory assertions" about science and technological develpment?  Huh?  Care to spell out what they were?  I said that technology is dependent on science.  It's basically applied science, really.  Like with the computer:  

Regardless of motives, one still needs to understand materials science, conductivity, etc. to be able to devise the plans to build one.

Let's see:  "bleeding edge technology developer"?  Is that why you have so many patents?  Or is that why your're still trying to get that ergonomic monstrosity of a "warmouse" going after a few years?  If it's so "bleeding edge" why are the reviews so mixed?  The only positive review I found was one saying that maybe for a niche market it'd be ok   But for the most part, they'd prefer some other kind of mouse.

You even quote from the post where I do answer at least some of your questions at 8/29/11 9:59 AM, but you keep claiming that I haven't answered them?  Even if you consider my answers wrong, which you say you do in this post, that's NOT the same damned thing.

For the questions I haven't already answered:
1. Would you seriously consider it meaningful, or even remotely relevant, if JD were to debate me on Paul Zachary's behalf, so long as he felt he has a good understanding of Paul Zachary's words?

JD agrees with you, not with PZ.  I'm trying to get him to accept PZ's challenge to see if he can back up the claims that Coulter made in her book since he seems to believe that her book is accurate.  In other words, he agrees with her.  That's where your question falls apart.  

Paul seems to want to know why people would think that, since he and other actual scientists have taken her book apart.

4. Now that I have answered all his questions and proved that "marital rape" can be reasonably defended under the principle of Common Law, is he willing to admit that by his own metric, the adjectives "inane" and "unworthy" no longer apply to me as a potential debate opponent for Paul Zachary Myers?

Your defense of marital rape through the use of common law?  As George, I'd love to see you try that in a real court of law.  "inane" and "unworthy" still apply to you as a person.  

I'll leave it up to Myers whether he wants to deal with you or not.  Lord knows you're certainly odious enough just through this medium.  In person, holy crap.


Gee, I guess I'll have to try harder...

Date: 2011/09/03 11:38:08, Link
Author: the_ignored
For context, Vox had asked me questions in that post of his, and I tried answering them. You can see how badly formatted my replies came out there, but nevertheless that's what they are.


Date: 2011/09/05 01:14:16, Link
Author: the_ignored
Well, it looks like Vox is not at all interested in my answers, but is instead going to hand wave them away and not even allow me to post on his blog:

I haven't needed any excuse to disregard his answers because he hasn't actually answered any of the four questions. Unlike his fellow Pharyngulan, Mhich, who appears to grasp the basic concept of first answering the question and only then proceeding to justify his answer, Reynold has produced nothing but incorrect, unsubstantiated, and invalid excuses for why he shouldn't have to answer the questions. Is he being evasive because he fears being pinned down or is he simply that stupid? At this point, it's a tough call. In any event, he will not be commenting here anymore unless and until he provides unequivocal, straightforward answers to the four questions, as per the publicly posted Rules of the Blog.

I'll let you guys be the judge of that...look at what I've already posted and what I'm about to post below.  Maybe if I try to explain in more detail, Vox will consider his questions "answered".  If not, well, that's why I'm posting them here, with just a link at his site to the reply here:  At least it's guaranteed that the reply is out there...

1. Would you seriously consider it meaningful, or even remotely relevant, if JD were to debate me on Paul Zachary's behalf, so long as he felt he has a good understanding of Paul Zachary's words?

As I tried to say earlier:  Your question is invalid.  Why?  JD agrees with you, not with PZ.  Why would he debate you in PZ's stead if he doesn't agree with PZ??  

Otherwise, if he had a good understanding of someone's words then I'd have no problem with him debating on that other person's behalf.  For instance, Ann Coulter.  However, JD was stupid enough to not even bother to read her sodding book before agreeing with her.  The challenge was up, so I decided to call JD on it.  He said he would at some point (a lot later then the few days you gave me before you started going on about how I "never" answered your questions.) but so far, he's done nothing.

2. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did? (His attempt to argue that Soviet technology was essentially equal to US technology on the basis of the stolen atomic bomb and the space program is verifiably false. I am also willing to accept an answer which substitutes why the technological level of the Soviet Union "fell significantly behind that of the United States" in lieu of its technological advancement being "almost completely frozen".)

I told you previously:  ideology and politics.  I gave the Lysenko guy as an example with Sov world genetics.

That's why their technological development fell apart in some areas...They wound up going with what they wanted to be true (ideology) as opposed to bothering to find out what the reality truly was.  If the science didn't back up what their ideology was, they suppressed it.  That is NOT how science works, I had have to go where the evidence leads.

I say again:  If you hate "science" so much, then forgo everything from computers to modern medicine, transportation, etc.  You won't though, because you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Whether you accept that answer of not, I don't know.  As I said, that's why I'm only posting a link to the (second attempt) at an answer to your blog.  Even if you don't publish that comment, it's still out there.

Date: 2011/09/05 01:41:07, Link
Author: the_ignored
Well, on the the third question.  This has got to be a classic example of how a creationist will use quotes.  Read on:

3. Is science unnecessary for technological development or am I, in fact, a master of science? (This is in response to his contradictory assertions that science drives technological advancement and my supposed ignorance of science. As he questioned my technological credentials, which are well-known in the game industry, I referred him to Engadget, which described one of my various technology designs as "the most advanced they had ever seen.")

As I've said before, science is needed for technological development.

I like how he cherry-picked the review on that site.  

Here's another excerpt from apparently the same review:    
Getting the Meta set up really isn't the struggle here. Nope, the struggle is all in remembering what you set each of the buttons to do. It's not that we have the memory of a goldfish, but trying to recall what 14 different buttons and each of their double click functions – yes, you can actually program this to do up to 48 shortcuts or commands per mode – requires an incredible amount of brain power. In practice we only ended up using a few of them: we got the hang of using A2 to copy, A4 to paste, B7 to open Engadget, and B5 to open a Google search in Firefox.

From their conclusion:
However, at the end of the day we can't help but wonder who could possibly remember how to use so many buttons on a single gadget. Sure, there's niche appeal for designers or gamers, but if you have $80 to spend on a mouse we'd honestly go with a more ergonomic option, like the Logitech MX 1100, and if you are a gamer the $130 Razer Mamba is rated amongst the top.

Get that?  The very same site that you used to show off your "technological superiority" is the same site where the reviews basically say that they'd rather use something else!

Yeah, that's real "bleeding edge" all right!

But hey, it's not all bad:
But hey, if you have a stellar memory and need a mouse with 18 buttons that can manage more shortcuts than anything else out there, there's nothing quite like the WarMouse Meta.

So yeah Vox, you're a master of nothing.

On a different article on that same site, I found (if one enables the comments):

After years of trying, someone finally made a mouse worse than Apple's Hockey Puck. Congrads. There is an entire ring of Hell reserved just for you.

OpenOffice mouse? The uncomfortable interface makes it more like a GIMP mouse.

Or you can pay $60 to get a 3-PC license Office 2007 Home and Student, and $15 for a cheap wireless mouse

Or for $5 less you could just get MS Office! Isn't the whole point of OpenOffice that it's free?

4. Now that I have answered all his questions and proved that "marital rape" can be reasonably defended under the principle of Common Law, is he willing to admit that by his own metric, the adjectives "inane" and "unworthy" no longer apply to me as a potential debate opponent for Paul Zachary Myers?

Nope:  You can't "reasonably defend" something based on a law that's all but outdated.    Yet the title of your post dealing with that topic said that there is no marital rape, period.  If that was the fucking case, then there would not be laws against it.  

Horrifyingly, as you no doubt know, this part of "common (or English) law" is rather recent:

Since the 1970s, the marital exemption has been under attack. The conclusive presumption that a wife always consents to sex with her husband, regardless of circumstances, is obviously untenable. Modern apologists for the exemption argue instead that in cases of marital discord, criminal sanctions represent an intrusion that could disrupt "the ongoing process of adjustment in the marital relationship" (American Law Institute, pp. 344–346). In addition, they argue, the harm of forced intimacy is less serious when the victim and the offender have "an ongoing relation of sexual intimacy."

Opponents of the exemption attack both claims. As to the first, they note that the marital exemption in its traditional form applies even when the parties are legally separated; moreover, when the parties are living together, legal sanctions for assault apply in cases of domestic violence, so there is no reason why other violent offenses within marriage should not be subject to punishment as well. As to the second claim, opponents of the exemption note that "wife rape can be as terrifying and life-threatening as stranger rape. In addition, it often evokes a powerful sense of betrayal, deep disillusionment, and total isolation" (Russell, pp. 190–191, 198–199).

All things that Vox doesn't seem to give a fuck about...but at least he's no atheist!  This is nuts.  Shouldn't the "good xians" be the first people in line to support these new laws while trying to foist the blame for the old ones on "darwinists and atheists"??

Anyway, here's where it's shown to be out-of date:

Responding to these criticisms, many states have abolished their marital exemption completely, either by legislation or by judicial decision reinterpreting the common law. At least one court has ruled the marital exemption unconstitutional on equal protection grounds (People v. Liberta, 474 N.E.2d 567 (N.Y. 1984)).

Nonetheless, the exemption survives in modified form in most of the states. Though only fifteen states have abolished all distinctions between marital and nonmarital rape, many states still treat marital rape as less serious than other rapes or permit prosecution for marital rape only when aggravated force was used; some states permit prosecution only when the parties are legally separated or permit prosecution only when the parties are living apart (Shulhofer, pp. 43–44).

So, at best for you, Vox, you'd get a lesser sentence than he otherwise would for raping his wife.

Never mind that the UN has a higher opinion of the value of women's lives than Vox does:
In December 1993, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women[10]. This establishes marital rape as a human rights violation.

Meanwhile the good libertarian christian Vox sees nothing wrong with it.  

The real kicker is is this story in the Bahamas where they're trying to outlaw marital rape.  Guess who's fighting against it, and on what basis?

Some local religious leaders have argued that a man cannot rape his wife claiming the Bible dictates that a wife must physically submit to her husband.

Controversial pastor Cedric Moss has vocally opposed the legislation claiming the amendment would create a "society of rapists." Citing the "word of God", Mr Moss argued that rape cannot be committed in marriage because the couple

gave each other authority over the other's body and agreed to open-ended sexual consent in the marriage contract. He argued that including spouses as potential rapists would contradict the sacrament of marriage.

"But can it be right to bring married people under such a law designed for unmarried people? No, and a thousand times, no! It is not right and it can never be right to bring all married couples under this definition of rape whereby moment by moment consent is required for every stage of every act of sexual intercourse.

So yeah, Vox, you are still "inane" and a misogynit prick from what I've read of your constant rantings about women on your blog,  though I concede that how big a prick you are has no bearing on your debating ability...wait, scratch that.  It probably makes you better at debates.

Date: 2011/09/05 01:56:43, Link
Author: the_ignored
Well, I just posted a link to Vox's blog see the 9/5/11 1:43 AM post where I link to my replies just above.  Whether he keeps that post up or not, I don't know...but at least the answer (both attempts at it!) are up now.

Date: 2011/09/05 14:12:17, Link
Author: the_ignored
You know what's funny?  One of Vox's acolytes, JD Curtis (goes by Phineagal or something on Vox's blog) made a hypocrite of himself with this entire mess.

How so?  Read what he says here:

The aggregate amount of “Free Thought” here is dizzying.

and compare it with what he does on his own blog:

Comment moderation is now enabled. Way to 'Strike a Blow for Free Speech', Chumley.

Well, he'll be relieved to read this thread if Voxytoad decides to leave my link up.  He'll see that I've answered twice.  Though of course, he'll deny it (He is after all, mister "Where's the Birth Certificate?")

His remarks about "social autism" strike me as ironic:  Look at all the things his hero Vox has said about women, and all the insults he constantly spews against anyone he agrees with.

Date: 2011/09/29 19:12:49, Link
Author: the_ignored
You all remember the rape apologist Vox Day, right?  Well, hold on to your hats, here's another one.

I don't believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.

Don't forget:  It's ATHEISTS who are the socially incompotent assholes here!

Even worse, check out the posts at the blog he links to!  It seems to be another one of his.

Holy shit.

Date: 2011/10/05 10:07:20, Link
Author: the_ignored
And now, the pot calling the kettle black.

Date: 2011/10/24 16:02:55, Link
Author: the_ignored
Let's face it: misogyny is built into the abrahamic religions.  For example, orthodox rabbis assaulting girls going to school.

Jesus H. Christ

Date: 2011/10/25 02:50:12, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 05 2011,14:41)
....found a strong link between utilitarian responses to these dilemmas (e.g., approving the killing of an innocent person to save the others) and personality styles that were psychopathic,...

Ergo, God is a psycopath.

I know it's not quite on topic, but if you want an example of god (or at least his servants) being psychopaths, get a load of of this example here

Date: 2011/12/10 22:43:21, Link
Author: the_ignored
Hah.  He finally admits that his commenting system over there is crap, but he couldn't find anything better.  

That bloody CoComment was the only thing on that site that I could not beat.  Maybe it's my browser, Opera, but I'm stubborn.

Date: 2012/03/30 23:56:10, Link
Author: the_ignored
Looks like he has another blog, more devoted to misogyny than anything, it looks like.

Date: 2012/06/09 05:55:08, Link
Author: the_ignored
Looks like Voxy Toad has struck again, according to PZ Myers

Date: 2013/08/04 14:45:05, Link
Author: the_ignored
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 18 2013,16:57)
My understanding is that the professors gave evidence, but none of it was 'directly observable' in a human lifetime or something like that, so Comfort is free to ignore it with the "you weren't there" argument.

That's pretty much it:
I was one of those scientists. NO, I did not disagree with Dawkins about evolution or the evidence for evolution; NO, nothing I said provided any support to creationist claims; NO, there is not a lack of evidence for evolution.

What actually happened is that I briefly discussed the evidence for evolution — genetics and molecular biology of fish, transitional fossils, known phylogenies relating extant groups, and experimental work done on bacterial evolution in the lab, and Ray Comfort simply denied it all — the bacteria were still bacteria, the fish were still fish. I suspect the other scientists did likewise: we provided the evidence, Ray Comfort simply closed his eyes and denied it all.

The sad thing is just how ignorant Comfort is of biology, yet people like Ham don't care:

"Except not every animal has males or females. Which Genesis neglects to mention. Why is that, Ray?" Cory Kent
Do you really think slugs and snails are "animals." They are not. They are what are termed “invertebrates,” which means they lack a backbone. They belong to a large and highly diverse group of invertebrates known as the Phylum Mollusca. You had better read Genesis again.