Clearing the Air - One Last Time!

It appears even when he departs the blog scene - as he now promises (by removing his blog after March 3) my irascible, irritating ass of a brother ("Pastor Mike") still can't leave the scene with any grace or style but must hurl innuendoes, untruths and plain old calumny. But alas, this is now his nature. In any case, I want to try to correct his serious misapprehensions one more time - responding to each of his comments made concerning me in his "message of departure".


He begins by writing:

"First and Foremost , I initially set this blog up last April (2009 ) , with the intention of opening up a debate type forum/blog for both believers and non-believers - INCLUDING ATHEISTS ,and their like-minded ilk . All I asked in advance was for the latter , to NOT blaspheme my LORD and Savior , Jesus Christ , and not PERSONALLY attack anyone with opposing views . "

This, of course, is total misbegotten rubbish. At no time did he sincerely wish to open up his blog to free exchange, only allowing certain posts within the delimited parameters he imposed. Thus, one could not at any time go back to cite pagan history (e.g. of Mithraism) to show that the "God Man Savior" theme actually was plagarized by certain Christians from those pagan sources. (See also my book review of 'Pagan Christs' at amazon.com)


The issue of "blasphemy" also came up as part of this delimitation - so that ANYTHING remotely construed as such would enable "Pastor Mike" to justify his refusal to post comments. As we know, blasphemy has always been a spurious claim, and is so ambiguous it can cover anything from refusing to accept the divine nature of Jesus, to showing the King James Bible is a corrupt source. At the end of the day, therefore, all appeals to "blasphemy" as a reason to disallow comments or exchanges amount to censorship pure and simple.

Thus, the stage was set ab initio for internecine warfare all Mike's protestations to the contrary.

He goes on, deluded as ever:

That however , was not to be . As after several weeks , when an atheist named "Phil" conceded by default ( one of THREE concessions by him ) , he continued his verbal attacks , not only on myself , but on a brother in Christ . A couple of his cohorts did likewise - so I eventually was forced to "screen" and approve ALL incoming posts / replies PRIOR to publishing them here , as my "honor system" was not being adhered to . Eventually , I decided to simply discontinue ALL debate whatsoever .


Note here, this miscreant bible slammer who professes the love and embrace of the "divine", can't even acknowledge his own brother - instead using "an atheist named Phil". As for concessions, he is in a state of delusion since there never were any! What I did was assert - after three fruitless rounds of him and his cohort Rene using illogic and erroneous, non-standard definitions (e.g. for agnostic and atheist) that further RATIONAL debate was impossible. This was not "concession" but rather an admission of the futility of engaging people with no grounding in even basic dialectical skills, fundamental applications of logic or reasoning. In other words, it was disengagement.

According to Websters Unabridged Dictionary: disengagement: the act or process of disconnection from an activity.

Concession: the act of yielding a point or fact in an argument, or yielding an entire argument by admission to the superiority of the converse.

Note that contrary to Mikey's blathering bilge, there's no such critter as a "default concession". One either actively concedes or one doesn't. When one disengages, it doesn't mean he concedes by default! (Though in Mike's delirious brain I'm not surprised he'd see it that way!)

Alas, anyone who confuses these two words (concession and disengagement) is also likely to be one who confuses 'atheist' with 'agnostic' as we've seen Mikey do, or confuse 'religion' with 'unbelief'.

As for his discontinuing of comments, and "debate" - one saw that when his commentators got the better of him, in actually putting him against the wall of rationality. Thus, he dismissed and ignored their comments because he had no answers - for example to arguments put forth by Caleb Shay(as he related to me).

Undaunted by his profound state of mental confusion and delusion he carries on:


I nevertheless , decided to continue with this blog , and in good faith was still willing to continue with at least what I hoped would be some facsimile of a civil dialogue with the atheists and other militant anti-Christ individuals - yet to no avail .


True, to "no avail", because at every disgusting opportunity and when reason failed - as it inevitably did - he trotted out the "Hell and damnation" card, as well as demonizing those of us who had superior arguments. Newsflash, Mikey, when you trot out Hell and damnation then accuse your opponents of being in league with "Satan" you've already lost. The fact is you never even TRIED to argue or debate on a higher plane, but had to resort to the same old verbal, abusive bullying you've always used - then wonder why you got a lot of it back in your face. What? You expected we New Atheists to just roll over and take it like the old ones? To crawl into a fetal position? And let you just pile on? Not damned well likely, pally!

It is really choice how you keep referring to wanting "civil dialogue" when all we got from you was anything but! Buddy, you need to look up 'civil' as well as all the other words you've deformed into a farrago of nonsense, euphemisms, malapropisms and other lingual detritus.

He continues:

It seems that (as I had mentioned in a prior post ) , that when all else fails for the atheists , they simply reach into their dirty little bag of tricks , and pull out defamation , slander , and character assassination , to name a few .

No, not at all. But when one conducts a HATE site, as you have - wantonly condemning everyone - Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Muslims (even showing the Qu'uran in a TOILET BOWL!) , Buddhists (accusing the Dalai Lama of spreading "venom"), atheists, Science of Mind folks (like my father-in-law- consigned to being "burned to a crisp") then you merit no quarter. To call a person out by identity, who recklessly posts hateful public screeds against all other religions IS NOT "character assassination" - but truth -telling. To expose a person by NAME who engages in hell -hurling damnation epithets and claims of allegiance to Satan, is NOT "defamation" or "slander". In the same way it isn't any of those if I call out Stormfront, or Aryan Nations or Christian Identity for their hate screeds. If you don't like - or didn't like - being called out, then you shouldn't have posted the despicable crap you did. Take ownership of your hate, buddy boy!

Sorry, but I don't play by the cutesy game of indirect or innominate disapproval. If YOU are slandering other religions you will be exposed, as I have done (and btw both Jerry and I have saved your whole blog as a web entry - so know in advance everything you've written, though you've taken it down, can be resurrected in toto at any time, including with photos. This is so anyone knows the references herein and hitherto are not just to apparitions in thin air- but actual blog writings by YOU!)

You're a damned bully, Mike, admit it. And like all bullies, you love it when you can grind anyone or any group down, and run over them -especially if they don't or won't fight back. But when you get busted back in the chops, you hate it. THAT is what you're grumbling over!

Ever true to his mental degeneration, Mikey gives us his final parting shot:

"And for you atheists and others who want to use blogs for nothing more than hate and discontent , all I have to say is , "Have at it ! " But hey , I blame myself for ever thinking we COULD have any type of civil dialogue , as well as believing "Phil " , the atheist, was sincere in his suggestion of the "debate blog" between Christians and non-Christians to begin with .

Save your baloney for your followers, Mikey boy. Any "civil dialogue" was lost when you first invoked the Hell and demonization cards, so don't get all holy Roller on us now. You brought on yourself whatever you received by your unending venom and epithets against all other creeds ....including our parents' religion - Catholicism- as when you referred to 'da Popey' and the veneration of the Virgin Mary as idolatry.

I could see from early neither you nor your pal Rene were interested in any serious debate- which is why I pulled the plug. Neither of you could marshall any rational arguments, and you endlessly bended the meaning of words to suit your own agenda. It was merely a game to you. So spare me the BS.

Btw, it IS possible to have rational debates between Christians and non-Christians, because I've partaken of them. I had an extended debate with an Anglican priest in 1982, and he met every standard one could measure for rationalism, and logic. He never once demonized me, or invoked the "Hell" card in the disgraceful manner you've done so consistently.

I also had a high standard debate with a Christian colleague at the college at which I taught - in Barbados.

But the key aspects of both these debates were:

1- The Christian side went beyond simply quoting chapter and verse of the bible, especially the corrupted KJV. As we know, to do so is to commit the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

2- The arguments used consistently applied and adopted standard meanings of words without trying to game the exchange by altering the meanings. In this way there was no time wasting or repetitive mish mash as evident with you and Rene.

3- The Christian side acknowledged its own shortcomings when exposed, and didn't hurl epithets at me for pointing them out.

4- The Christian side didn't bully or become abusive, acknowledging that the basic materialist argument I applied DID have much to commend it and gave them food for thought. They didn't dismiss it as "Satanic" anything as you've had wont to do.

The point is, my own experience discloses it IS possible to have healthy debate, it just wasn't with you - because you're a typical bible-punching literalist, bullying absolutist who believes it's his way (or his puny god's) or the highway. Who is incapable of acknowledging a scintilla of basis for his opponents' arguments.

And finally, as if we didn't know and might be caught by surprise:

"So , I'll bite the bullet on that . Satan obviously has such a hold on you that he will keep you in his grip until you meet up with him , (AND your atheist in-laws , friends , etc ) , in HELL - to await eternal damnation in the lake of fire !!"

And what else would we have expected but pulling out the ol' Hell- Satan bullshit at the end. You're so damned predictable! You never fail to fulfill what we forecast for you, Mikey. And obviously you will never change, despite the fact as I've shown umpteen times you can't have both an infinite God and Hell(or Satan) - the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

But your puny imbecilic little mind obviously can't grasp that. Leave it to a bully boy fundie to have a bully god who is such a weakling, a lily-livered little psycho - that he can't handle a little unbelief or a separate way.

Just remember one thing, Mikey, according to the Catholic Church - the one you left and have relentlessly vilified over and over, YOU also will be roasting in that "lake of fire".

Have at it, Mikey - perhaps in the next life, under metempsychosis - you will come back as less of an obnoxious psychotic. I just hope your kids manage to escape your iron-fisted domination and come out better people than you are.

If you ever want to be a friend - which to me by extension means brother, fine. If the only reason to make contact, however, is to shove your biblical "salvation" crap in my face then spare me. You stay out of my life, and I will stay out of yours. How's that sound?