See, I was right about John W. Loftus! Hooray Me!

I predicted that John W. Loftus would separate with his wife right here and he did:

"My wife and I separated. This isn't good but it is what it is."
- John W. Loftus, August 18, 2011, Facebook Status

Man, I'm good! You're still a loser Loftus. Now, are you going to blame your wife for this separation like how you blamed your ex-wife for your infidelity?

Infidel Delusion: A Response to John W. Loftus' The Christian Delusion

Lying, adulterer John W. Loftus done got his little baby spanked in this awesome refutation from the men at Triablogue.

Someone arrest Richard Dawkins!

Richard "the insane" Dawkins thinks that the Pope should be arrested for the alleged cover-up of child sex scandals. I really don't know if the Pope did the cover up. Dawkins and his ilk, of course, thinks he did. However, Dawkins likes to play the "child abuse" card. He thinks that merely labeling a child with a religious name is genuine abuse! And of course this idiot wouldn't think that calling a child an atheist or agnostic is abuse. Oh, no, that can never be abuse now can it, Dick. No special pleading there.

Since his brainless comment about labeling a child is a form of abuse, he has since suggested that doesn't mean he wants the state to come in and take the child away from the baby:



Now, if brainless Dawkins actually thought for a change he'd know that if a child is being abused by their parents, you take the child away from the parents. That's just common sense. But what Dawkins is now suggesting in the video above is that the child should stay with abusive parents! LOL! It looks like brainless Dawkins bit off more than he can chew. He knew how much of a boneheaded comment he made and in an effort to do damage control he just made things worse. If he thinks that labeling a child without the child's consent is a form of abuse then if I labeled my child with the name of "John" that's abuse according to Dawkins because the child had no say in it.

Link

Dinesh D'Souza pummels John W. Loftus

Yup, without question, Dinesh D'Souza whipped John W. Loftus. Loftus did so bad in this debate it makes one wonder why he actually thinks he stands a chance against William Lane Craig. And Loftus is one to talk about brainwashed people?! I can only hope to hear more debates by Loftus because it's fun seeing him get embarrassed this way. I never heard him win a debate. Cjheck it out:

John W. Loser

We've always knew that William-Lane-Craig-namedropping Loftus isn't exactly a good debater. But worse, he's a terrible thinker. He just had a debate with Dinesh D'Souza and word around the fire camp is that Loftus did so bad that even atheists thought he sucked. This has caused Loftus so much anguish he is now blaming atheists for being too stupid to realize how good he was at the debate. These links are interesting:

Links from atheists who thought Loftus did terrible:

Skeptic Money
Le Cafe
UCIC

John W. Loser's damage control:

Link
Link
Link
Link

Atheist responds to Loser's damage control:

Link

John W. Loftus admits atheism is absurd!

Not only did he say that atheism was absurd in his book but in a phone interview he confirmed it; and he went even further and was dumb enough to say that something (energy) can be nothing! (Even a 2-year-old knows that energy isn't nothing! But not for atheists like John W. Loftus.) Here he says it in this interview:



When Paul Manata debated Loftus, AGAIN, admitted that atheism was absurd:

On Carrie Prejean

Carrie Prejean hits home because the church she's affiliated with (The Rock in San Diego) did some inner city ministries I attended. There they got kids off of gangs and drugs. So, I was surprised Prejean was involved with this church.

Given the circumstances, I must be blunt (like I always am), I believe Prejean is a hypocrite. However, despite her flaws I think what she's doing is noble. Just because she believes in traditional marriage doesn't mean her hypocritical lifestyle makes it false. That's like saying since a child-molester teaches that 1+1=2, it would be false since he's a pedophile.

What's at issue here is whether Carrie Prejean has been discriminated against because of her stance on traditional marriage. Liberals are trying to make it look like she wasn't discriminated against and that it had everything to do with her lying about her topless pictures, or for not attending some events. I don't buy that for a second. You'd have to be a lame-brain to think that's the case. So, let's get to that. But first, let's introduce the people involved in this fiasco:

Victim:
Carrie Prejean

Enemies:
Keith Lewis (director of Miss California)
Shanna Moakler (co-director of Miss California; also Miss USA 1995)

Low-life loser:
Carrie Prejean's ex-boyfriend

A few things you should know about Keith Lewis:

Keith Lewis is known for intimidating and taking back crowns from winners. No really, that's what this fool does. And he did it to Christina Silva who won Miss California 2008... well, she actually didn't win, you see, it was an "accounting error" (Yup, it's really tough counting points by 5 judges). Christina Silva actually went on national television to speak of her dilemma and she did not have kind words with Keith Lewis, check it out (also here). What's interesting then is that Carrie Prejean was not meant to be Miss California 2008. Either way, Lewis is known for screwing people over. And I don't believe for a second that he's a professional. Of course he gives out partial-transcripts of his involvement with Prejean to see how unprofessional she is.

Keith Lewis also hooked Carrie Prejean up with a modeling agent. And it's this same agency that had Carrie Prejean do pictures where it was revealed later that some of her pictures were topless! It's simple, no Keith Lewis, no Carrie Prejean topless pictures. When models do pictures they may actually expose their bare chests even though the advertisements may have the nudity covered up (for instance, a piece of furniture or the model's hands may cover their exposed chest - in fact, Prejean had a picture like that). Mr. Lewis had to know this. So when he had a picture of a topless Prejean he knew he could use that to take her crown away if she gives him trouble. And that's exactly what happened. He tried to get Prejean fired after she made her controversial statement on gay marriage and he used the picture as leverage. And you can imagine how angry he was when Donald Trump reinstated her crown. But that didn't stop Keith Lewis from finding a way to get Prejean fired again - like telling her to go to events - gee, one of those events required was doing a Playboy one! - for which Prejean refused. I think the fact that Keith Lewis wanted Prejean to go to a Playboy event proves that he's a hypocrite. Why wouldn't he have a problem with Prejan doing Playboy but have a problem with Prejean doing topless pictures? It just doesn't add up.

Keith Lewis is an out-of-the-closet gay man and produced a documentary on gay relationships. To me, this is motive. He suspected Prejean of being a homophobe and he tried to hurt her. Of course, after he had her fired he got a pro-traditional marriage Miss California to taker her place, lest people suspect that his motive in firing Prejean was about gay marriage. The new Miss California is a guinea pig.

A few things about Shanna Moakler:

This is hilarious, after winning Miss USA, Moakler became a Playboy playmate. So, this idea that the staff and Keith Lewis (and yes Shanna Moakler) were outraged that Prejean did topless pictures is a complete joke. What's with their fascination with Playboy?

Shanna Moakler is not only pro-gay marriage (there's motive, again) but her rambunctious life-style isn't hard to see since she was among the few to do a reality TV show.

Carrie Prejean's loser ex-boyfriend:

Knowing how he hurt her like this just shows how badly he got hurt when she dumped him - although I have no proof that she dumped him, but c'mon, it's obvious, look how bitter this idiot is. I don't know why they aren't together but if Prejean's ex was a real man he wouldn't make an effort to destroy someone's life like this - giving out pornographic material on her?! I mean, wow! He should have given back those tapes to her. He says in an interview that Prejean likes to present herself in a way that would win approval with people. Maybe so, but I find that hard to believe. Do you think she won approval by saying gay marriage should be between a man and a woman on public television?

Further proof that Prejean's ex-boyfriend isn't a man is the fact he won't reveal himself in public. Not a picture or a name. He's "courageous" enough to show a hidden side of Prejean, but he's not courageous enough to show his hidden identity. I think the fact that he's proud and happy that he destroyed someone's life says a lot about him. He's a loser and a low-life. No wonder Prejean broke up with him. For good reason to.

Now, Carrie Prejean:

I feel sorry for her on one hand but on the other I don't.

I feel sorry for her because she obviously got hurt for taking a stand on her faith and her view on gay marriage.

I don't feel sorry for her because she was dumb enough to make a video tape of herself masturbating. Carrie has to understand something: God will not be mocked. I find it hard to believe she made this tape when she was 17. I believe she was a Christian when she made it. I only suspect this. I hope I'm proven wrong though.

I thought it was a big mistake that she settled. This video tape proves that there was a smear campaign to destroy her, why settle after that? Was it because she feared more material of herself will get out? Knowing the internet world, it's going to get out anyway. So why stop there? She should have toughen it through. But she didn't.

Conclusion:

It's obvious, a bunch of bigoted, sick-minded, low-life, cowardly, and lying individuals (ie Keith Lewis, Shannan Moakler, Prejean's ex, and then some) set out to destroy Carrie Prejean because of this:



I mean, is it any wonder that they are currently producing a segment that ridicules Prejean? Wow, when people hold a grudge. And Keith Lewis said that Prejean had mental problems? And again, the idea that Prejean was fired for not sticking to her contract for going to events (one of them involving Playboy, which Prejean told Keith Lewis she cannot go to) is bunk, and a way to corner Prejean. How would Keith Lewis (or Shanna Moakler) like it if he was required to go to a conservative and pro-traditional marriage rally?

However, I'm afraid Christians must distance themselves from Prejean until she gets things straight between herself and God. And after learning this big lesson, something tells me she will.

Better thinking Atheist admits "New Atheists" are a complete disaster

Atheist Michael Ruse tells us what we needed to hear: the new atheists are a complete "bloody disaster."

Richard Dawkins is in love with chunks of matter

Sometimes I wonder if Dawkins is serious about some of the stuff he says. Check it out:

"On one planet, and possibly only one planet in the entire universe, molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter. We now understand essentially how the trick is done, but only since 1859."

- Richard Dawkins, God Delusion, p. 366-367

Many atheists who have read my blog were not happy with the fact that I've told them they're nothing but matter and motion, or just bits of pieces of protoplasm, etc. But I was never wrong about it. Dawkins vindicates me!

Richard Dawkins finally admits the truth!

And that truth would be the fact that he cannot prove Darwinian evolution:

"Richard Dawkins has publicly admitted: 'I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.'" [1]

Source:

1. “Dawkins made this remark in response to a question posed by the New York Times to a number of prominent scientists: ‘What do you believe what you cannot prove?’ The published responses on January 4, 2005.” Quoted in Robert Royal, (February 17, 1984), 12. The God that Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West (New York: Encounter Books, 2006), xii, 277.

Richard Carrier corrupts the atheist youths. And we love it!

The good thing about Richard Carrier is that he has no idea how stupid he's making his fans look (yes, indeed, Carrier calls his followers his "fans"). There's at least two atheist morons (one of them goes by the name of Tom Verenna) who have written self-published books that haven't sold. No surprise, but most of Carrier's books are self-published too. Atheist groupie and shallow-thinker Christopher Hallquist from "Uncredible Hallq" also had a self-published book done. He's yet another gullible student who's fond of Carrier's works (he's actually crazy enough to think he's a good enough debater to take on William Lane Craig, too - after listening to this, trust me, you'd disagree with Unreasonable Hallq). What is this trend with unworthy and un-sophisticated and young-as-hell-and-in-desperate-need-of-more-education atheists who think they have the smarts and sophistication to write books? I think it has a lot to do with Carrier's own arrogant and smugness. After all, this idiot wrote:

"I am no less a philosopher than Aristotle or Hume. My knowledge, education, and qualifications certainly match theirs in every relevant respect."

Of course, you won't find this quote from Carrier anymore since he deleted it from his website (it ends up that smarter atheists told him to - obviously, they know that this isn't true). But Carrier's fans think of him as another Aristotle and Hume. And as such, he's blessed them with his knowledge. These fans of his felt so overwhelmed they've decided to write crappy books. Little do they know that the joke is on them. And as long as more people follow Carrier, they'll look like jokes. I can only hope he has more fans then. If not, maybe Carrier can get more literally out of his butt.

William Lane Craig on Richard Carrier here.

Liberal L. A. Times knows how idiotic the New Atheists are!

I love this article:

Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining

Superstar atheists are motivated by anger -- and boohoo victimhood.

By Charlotte Allen
May 17, 2009

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

Other people, most recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, "Faith, Reason, and Revolution," take to task such superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and political journalist Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist.

My problem with atheists is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?

Read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or the works of fellow atheists Sam Harris ("The End of Faith") and Daniel Dennett ("Breaking the Spell"), or visit an atheist website or blog (there are zillions of them, bearing such titles as "God Is for Suckers," "God Is Imaginary" and "God Is Pretend"), and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse -- again and again -- the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.

First off, there's atheist victimology: Boohoo, everybody hates us 'cuz we don't believe in God. Although a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with another 2.4% weighing in as agnostics (a group despised as wishy-washy by atheists). You or I might attribute the low numbers to atheists' failure to win converts to their unbelief, but atheists say the problem is persecution so relentless that it drives tens of millions of God-deniers into a closet of feigned faith, like gays before Stonewall.

In his online "Atheist Manifesto," Harris writes that "no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that ... God exists." The evidence? Antique clauses in the constitutions of six -- count 'em -- states barring atheists from office.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled such provisions unenforceable nearly 50 years ago, but that doesn't stop atheists from bewailing that they have to hide their Godlessness from friends, relatives, employers and potential dates. One representative of the pity-poor-me school of atheism, Kathleen Goodman, writing in January for the Chronicle of Higher Education, went so far as to promote affirmative action for atheists on college campuses: specially designated, college-subsidized "safe spaces" for them to express their views.

Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God. This is a favorite Dawkins theme. In a recent interview with Trina Hoaks, the atheist blogger for the Examiner.com website, Dawkins described religious believers as follows: "They feel uneducated, which they are; often rather stupid, which they are; inferior, which they are; and paranoid about pointy-headed intellectuals from the East Coast looking down on them, which, with some justification, they do." Thanks, Richard!

Dennett likes to call atheists "the Brights," in contrast to everybody else, who obviously aren't so bright. In a 2006 essay describing his brush with death after a heart operation, Dennett wrote these thoughts about his religious friends who told him they were praying for his recovery: "Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?" With friends like Daniel Dennett, you don't need enemies.

Then there's P.Z. Myers, biology professor at the University of Minnesota's Morris campus, whose blog, Pharyngula, is supposedly about Myers' field, evolutionary biology, but is actually about his fanatical propensity to label religious believers as "idiots," "morons," "loony" or "imbecilic" in nearly every post. The university deactivated its link to Myers' blog in July after he posted a photo of a consecrated host from a Mass that he had pierced with a rusty nail and thrown into the garbage ("I hope Jesus' tetanus shots are up to date") in an effort to prove that Catholicism is bunk -- or something.

Myers' blog exemplifies atheists' frenzied fascination with Christianity and the Bible. Atheist website after atheist website insists that Jesus either didn't exist or "was a jerk" (in the words of one blogger) because he didn't eliminate smallpox or world poverty. At the American Atheists website, a writer complains that God "set up" Adam and Eve, knowing in advance that they would eat the forbidden fruit. A blogger on A Is for Atheist has been going through the Bible chapter by chapter and verse by verse in order to prove its "insanity" (he or she had gotten up to the Book of Joshua when I last looked).

Another topic that atheists beat like the hammer on the anvil in the old Anacin commercials is Darwinism versus creationism. Maybe Darwin-o-mania stems from the fact that this year marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth in 1809, but haven't atheists heard that many religious people (including the late Pope John Paul II) don't have a problem with evolution but, rather, regard it as God's way of letting his living creation unfold? Furthermore, even if human nature as we know it is a matter of lucky adaptations, how exactly does that disprove the existence of God?

And then there's the question of why atheists are so intent on trying to prove that God not only doesn't exist but is evil to boot. Dawkins, writing in "The God Delusion," accuses the deity of being a "petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak" as well as a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist ... bully." If there is no God -- and you'd be way beyond stupid to think differently -- why does it matter whether he's good or evil?

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the "flying spaghetti monster" of atheists' typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking ("If there's a God, why aren't I rich?" "If there's a God, why didn't he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?") will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.

What primarily seems to motivate atheists isn't rationalism but anger -- anger that the world isn't perfect, that someone forced them to go to church as children, that the Bible contains apparent contradictions, that human beings can be hypocrites and commit crimes in the name of faith. The vitriol is extraordinary. Hitchens thinks that "religion spoils everything." Dawkins contends that raising one's offspring in one's religion constitutes child abuse. Harris argues that it "may be ethical to kill people" on the basis of their beliefs. The perennial atheist litigant Michael Newdow sued (unsuccessfully) to bar President Obama from uttering the words "so help me God" when he took his oath of office.

What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?

Charlotte Allen is the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus" and a contributing editor to the Minding the Campus website of the Manhattan Institute.

A. N. Wilson becomes a born-again Christian!

He once criticized Christianity, and wrote many books against it, but he has come to embrace it (see also here). As I understand it, the UK can be quite anti-religious. Yet in the midst of this, AN Wilson became a Christian!

Richard Dawkins the Christian?

We're reported about this before, but we found the video:



Personally, I find it strange that Dawkins would call himself a Christian after calling us delusional. But, hey, that's the "rationality" of Dawkins for you. But since Dawkins loves singing Christmas carols, we hope that he will also join Christians in celebrating Easter as well :)

As for all you atheists, I would urge you to follow Dawkins' example. The blind and mindless flying spaghetti monster demands that you do!

Fighting Against The Lies of Tom Verenna

In response to "Fighting Against the Slander" (by Thomas Verenna aka Rook Hawkins):

Verenna says, "Frank Walton is a pseudonymous name and he often attacks the person rather than the argument."

I'll let the people judge whether they think I'm just attacking the person and not the argument. But my real name is Frank Walton. I've told people over and over again there is an atheist pretending to be me around the net while posting immature remarks. I wrote about that here. Yet Verenna never acknowledges this. But I think it's quite hypocritical of Verenna for accusing JP Holding for using a "pseudonymous name" - I mean, Verenna called himself "Rook Hawkins" at one point!


Verenna says, "Frank also runs several hate-blogs dedicated to nothing but slander and libel. One such blog, http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com, is directed towards me."

That site is not run by me. The person doing that blogsite has linked to many of my blog articles though. Personally, I love the blogsite. It really does show Verenna for who he really is: a phony. Also, there's another blog on Verenna here. Great stuff!


Verenna says, "Frank claims I lied about being named Assistant Director of the Jesus Project."

I never claimed that. (But, yes, I do think that Verenna is a liar). Everything he says in that section has no bearing on me. But it does look like Verenna is no longer a part of the "Jesus Project" fellowship.


Verenna says, "Do Scholars 'Distance' Themselves From Thomas? There is a claim made that I often talk of scholars who I know, but when questioned these individuals 'distance' themselves from me. Thomas Thompson is listed as an example. But this is not the case. Frank is being dishonest."

No, I'm not. I've responded to the "Thomas L. Thompson" fiasco here (look particularly under "Frank Walton has been caught lying?! Say it ain't so!"). Thompson was lied to by Verenna when he suggested I was "Tim O'Neill". Later on, I've emailed Thompson myself. But he hasn't responded.

If Bob Price thinks that Verenna is a "resourceful scholar" then he can sing that to the hills if he wants. But Price is wrong because even Verenna himself said that he's not a scholar:

"I would not call myself a scholar."

[rationalresponders.com/forum/14034]

Anyway, Verenna doesn't mention the fact (nor does he even bother replying to) that Price did say this,

"...I fear Rook gave the wrong impression..."

He said this NOT too long ago. Verenna won't even bother giving his readers the full story.

Also, realize Verenna does not mention Eric Schumacher who has decided to distance himself from Verenna (read all about this here). So, I'm still vindicated. Many scholars want nothing to do with Verenna.


Verenna says, "Did Thomas Have Anything to do with the Dawkins Claims? Frank and others have insisted that I am partially responsible for the incident where Richard Dawkins had been accused of certain unethical allegations. "

I didn't say Verenna had been partially responsible. So, I don't see how that section has anything to do with me. I specifically pointed fingers at Brian and Kelly - I wrote about that here. However, Verenna was still with the Rational Response Squad during the time, yes, even when they made the allegation that Dawkins had an affair with another woman. I don't recall if he castigated Brian or Kelly for that remark.


Verenna says, "I never said I served in Iraq."

Well now he tells us! Verenna knows full well that he's been keeping his military duty and the Iraq War very ambiguous. Look what he says here,

"I may not have served in the Iraq War, but I'm ready for a war know. [sic]"

- 4 Mar 09, 04:10:18 AM

You "may not" have served in the Iraq War? If you didn't serve there, you'd say, "I did not fight in Iraq." This is the type of ambiguous and dishonest statements Verenna makes.


Verenna says, "Frank claims that I have plagiarized."

Yup, you sure did. And I prove it here. Also, notice that Verenna won't bother showing you the article that he plagiarized. He won't show you the article he wrote nor the quotes from Dennis McKinsey. Figures. Also, I emailed Dennis McKinsey (after he wrote to Tom Verenna), and by then he even acknowledged that Verenna may have indeed plagiarized him! He wrote to us (in 2007) saying,

"If Rook did that then he should not only apologize but refrain from such activity in the future."

Verenna will not tell anybody about this letter we received from McKinsey. Verenna has accused people (who actually do their homework) of plagiarism (like JP Holding), yet the irony of it all is that Verenna is in fact the plagiarist.

Here's Verenna's writing: "It proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus, but only affirms the existence of Christians."

And now here's McKinsey's writing: "...the passage proves nothing in regard to the existence of Jesus. It only affirms the existence of Christians."

Notice the similarities? The, uh, plagiarism done by Verenna? Why won't Verenna show his readers these quotes? You can't hide from the evidence, Verenna.


Verenna says, "A choice slander that Frank uses is that I’m a pervert."

Yes, you're bad writing about making out with a girl is perversion. (And this video you made with your ho is perverted too). Notice, that Verenna won't bother to show you guys his fictional writings. Seriously, guys, it sucks. Hmm, maybe that's why he wont' show it to you. Verenna also won't tell you how he asked someone to provide him with "cum". Read about that here. Not only that but when he was asked if he f*cked Kelly (of the Rational Response Squad) he wrote this:

"My blogs are of unheard of levels and comprise of my research on ancient texts. And some porn, Halii" (July 4, 2008).

But, again, Verenna doesn't show the evidence I've presented.


Verenna says, "On his site, he lists several quotes which he claims mean that I am a fascist."

Notice again, that Verenna won't even show you guys the quote. This is typical "Verenna" stuff. He's afraid the other side will read the whole story. Anyway, Verenna wrote,

...let this be a reminder that this is what the [Rational Response Squad] is fighting for - to free minds and rid the world or [sic] irrational people like Frank Walton...

If he didn't mean violence, fine then. However, I find it hard that Verenna is a pacifist when earlier in the "Fighting Against the Slander" article he mentioned how he enlisted in the army and was at one time "gung ho" to go to war. But whatever. If he had a change of mind, great. However, if Verenna wants to rid the world of people like me, one things for sure then, he would rather that I not exist at all. To me, that's just as bad as fascism. I, on the other hand, am glad that people like Verenna exist. People have to know how incredibly irrational people like Verenna are, especially when you deny God.

That's all that needs to be said I suppose. All the stuff Verenna says about me (being a stalker, being psychologically damaged, etc.) doesn't hurt me in the least. C'mon, can a shallow mind like Verenna's get the best of me? Of course not. After all, he was voted the most stupidest atheist in his former club. People can go to the biased and dishonest "Rational Response Squad" run blogsite "'Atheism Sucks' Sucks" to see if any of that stuff is true (that dipstick site claims "I'm my own stalker" while saying they have proof that I have been using false names with the same IP addresses - yet they don't even provide the proof or evidence or the IP numbers). But for what it's worth, I still am vindicated about Verenna. Verenna as oyou can see from his "Fighting Against the Slander" article is filled with damage control, while not showing his readers the full truth. Because he knows he has everything to hide. Oh, and, Verenna, give Richard Carrier my blessing. I hope he does get the FBI involved. By then, they'll find out I'm not responsible for any sock-puppery at all. And you've been telling everybody that you intend on suing me, but, so far, I've received no lawsuit (what, it's been like 3 years now!). You got nothing on me, goatee boy. Don't insult your readers, Tommy, by thinking they don't know you're a fraud. Perhaps the best thing to do is to actually study the stuff you criticize. Maybe then you'll be taken more seriously. Thanks and God bless.

Verenna says, "*Edit (2/21/2010): Frank is at it again and quoting text from a message board (Rants ‘n’ Raves) by a member using my name and pseudonym. I do not have an account on RnR; the account is clearly from an impersonator (maybe even one of Frank’s own sock-puppets), like the faux accounts of Sapient and Kelly. There are (or were) several other faux accounts on their website. That Frank knows this and still quotes from the source as if it were really me is another example of his many dishonest character flaws."

(#1) Notice that Verenna (in the very first sentence) admitted that he used a pseudonym. So, for him to complain about JP Holding using pseudonyms is hypocritical. (#2) I did not "sock-puppet" him. But for a person who uses pseudonyms, who is he to complain about sock-puppets? Furthermore, he linked to a website (ie "Atheism Sucks" sucks) that made claims I never said. And I proved it here. (#3) I truly doubt that the person who calls himself by Verenna's pseudonym "Rook Hawkins" is actually another person. I think this is actually Verenna himself. Why is he saying it's another person pretending to be him then? Obviously because (as I said before) he's trying to distance himself from his hypocritical past. Notice that I caught him writing this, "My blogs are of unheard of levels and comprise of my research on ancient texts. And some porn, Halii." Guess what? His website at the Rational Response Squad site is chock full of pornographic images. Also, checkout what we wrote about his obvious perversion above. How doesn't that make Verenna a pervert? Verenna has been trying to delete past articles he's written. But fortunately he's unable to delete some posts at RnR. When he posted articles at atheistnetwork.com, and we found that he plagiarized writings from Dennis McKinsey in one of those articles, Verenna promptly had it deleted. We write about that here. And Verenna says I'm dishonest?