Yet Another Hysterical Anti-Christian Displays His Massive Stupidy for Us

While reading the reviews for a book called The Historical Jesus I came across a typical anti-Christian rant in need of a smack down. In quotes are sections of the rant by "A Customer" and I've replied to them:

The title of his review:

"Please! Faith and historical research don't mix well."

Bcuz! You Said! So! So is that your atheist science lesson for the day? Why then do so many evolutionists believe faith that evolution is true mixes with historical research? Do you even know what faith means? Hint: It doesn't mean "belief without evidence" which you clearly think it means from reading your stupid rant.

"By A Customer"

What's wrong, didn't you have time enough to tell us who you were? Aren't you proud of your scholarly scientific review?

"If this is the 'factual' basis for the historicity of Jesus, then Christianity is in trouble."

Bcuz u said so, and whatever the atheist says is true is true. Not very scientific are you?

"What a joke."

Bcuz u said so, and whatever the atheist says is true is true. Not very scientific are you? Hint: Evidence doesn't mean, "Whatever you feel is true." Use a dictionary and stop being lazy.

"The 'evidence' -- ?"

That's your "evidence" so far --? Atheists, always wasting time with their stupidity and pretension.

"Well, it isn't there."

Am I the only one who feels like there a fly buzzing in my ear, or is it just me?

"I was very excited to read this book;"

Because you had new material to find imaginary faults in.

"it was recommended to me by thoughtful, intelligent Christians who I greatly respect."

I smell self-serving flattery.

"But the book was a real shock -- "

Holy mother of mothers! Really! Shocking!

"the author contradicts himself all the time,"

Bcuz ye said so, and whatever ye say is true is true bcuz ye said it.

"the author uses the New Testament primarily to 'prove' the truth of the New Testament -- Hm..."

Hmmmm, he's trying to "prove"? So because it didn't convince your illogical self it wasn't proof to anyone else lol? Did you forget the meaning of proof too? Damn you're an arrogant babbler aren't ya?

Can you shut up already or come up with evidence? You're wasting my time.

"That's some fishy logic, no?"

No, whatever you say is not true bcuz u you posted a rhetorical question. Furthermore, questions do not equal evidence in and of themselves, sarcasm does not equal evidence in and of itself. You are really dying to end up in Hell aren't you? Tell us all wise one where he says, "The NT is true bcuz it says it is true". Show us. Oh, you can't, bcuz you're a careless liar.

"I strongly suggest that those who are earnestly interested in the history of Christianity and its beliefs concerning Jesus -- "

And we saved Christians forgiven of our since care what an opinion-bashing ranter strongly suggests bcuz?

"who are not biased a priori by their 'faith'"

Insane one why did you put "faith" in quotes? Are you stupid? So you don't truly believe that they have faith, LOL? Well what do you think it is then, logical belief? Is that it Mr. Confused?

Mr. A Priori do you think you are smart because you said "a priori" rather than "because" like a non-vain person who truly cares about making sense and helping others (rather than being a show off) would have said? It makes you look stupid and vain to me and the millions of Christians on my side.

And what is your evidence that the author is biased? Do you wan't us to just have, lol, "faith" that you're right because you have "faith" that you're right?

Contradictory one did you notice you are biased because you have faith that the Bible isn't true? Blind much? Again, look up the meaning of the word faith before spitting all over everyone. Furthermore contradictory one, are you really that stupid as to think 100+ million Christians cannot think logically because they trust that God's word is true based on the logical things it states? You're seriously that stupid? Then you who have faith God and Jesus do not exist can never be logical either.

"which immediately necessitates certain conclusions --"

Trust "immediately" (the hell?) necessitates certain conclusions? Genius, did you mean, trusting in something means you conclude that something is true? Was that so hard to say Mr. Word Salad Master?

And why are you telling us that it's immediate? Hey, I've got some useless information to waste your time with while I'm pretending to be smart too: If you say something you've immediately said something! Neato huh?

Now, your point that trust means you have concluded certain things, IS? So if an evolutionist trusts that evolution is true based on his reading of books endorsing evolution means he is biased? Huh? Can we say, "contradiction" or how about "I'm ranting and have made no point"?

"then check out the work by [blah, blah blah, blah blah], and [blah bleah]."

No thanks, clearly if they have as careless garbage research skills and moral logical as you aren't worth reading.

"The bottom line: the authors of the New Testament simply used Old Testament, Pagan, and Greek sources to construct their jesus tales."

Bottom line: saying "bottom line" with the feeling that you are oh so wise doesn't cut it. Bottom line: Bcuz u said so does not equal evidence. Bottom line: Parroted tales like yours does not equal evidence. Bottom line: Fancy word salad does not equal evidence, let alone nonsensical word salad. Bottom line: You've wasted out time again. Bottom line: You are still sinning against God and pretending he doesn't exist despite the clear evidence the universe has been designed and that Jesus was a good and truthful man. Bottom line: You need to learn the definitions of the words you use before acting like you know what you are talking about.

"It is all there -- for anyone willing to look for the truth."

It is all there -- for anyone willing to look for the truth. Woah, I can say that to you too! That must make me right!

Wikihypocrisy - Darwinists Protect Their False god Darwin

Well did they bury my edits? A very openly gay moderator who instantly erased my edits based on his "doesn't appear to be constructive" feelings did so repeatedly, he even went so far as to delete my rebukes on his talk page. You can tell that this "moderator" (Allstarecho) is trolling because he literally will delete any condemning info about Darwin if he catches a change within seconds. No one is going to tell me this guy is making careful judgments with reasonless personal attacks like that. Ironically I was banned for supposedly attacking him by pointing out his hypocrisy and trolling. That's Darwin-worshipping pleasure-addicts for you. On top of that there was a blatant self-admitted troll who got rid of the criticism on the Origin of Species page. Did any Darwinists undo his dirty work? Nope, they sanction him. It's just like Yahoo Answers where the top moderators use stalkers and harassers to do their dirty work.

I Wonder If the Atheist Evolutionists Will Allow This Relevant Info

I decided to add some important information to the wikipedia pages on evolutionist "Eiseley" and "Origin of the Species" concerning Darwin's credit thievery. I wonder if they've buried it already.

Wikipedia Still Dominated By Hypcoritical Snakeoil Scientists

I posted this rebuke on the discussion page on Venus of Wikipedia:

Unscientific Hypocritical Propaganda

Saidsoisms:

"Venus is thought to undergo periodic episodes of plate tectonics, in which the crust is subducted rapidly within a few million years, separated by periods of a few hundred million years of relative stability. This contrasts strongly with Earth's more or less steady state of ongoing subduction and continental drift, but is consistent with how geological processes operate without oceans, since oceans are believed to act as a lubricant in subduction. It is believed the surface rocks of Venus are only about a half-a-billion years old as impact crater analysis suggests that its surface dynamics have exchanged its surface for a clean face (wiping out old craters) sometime in the last billion years."

Where is the citation for even one of these statements? Where even a "citation needed"? Why hypocrites you evolutionists and panspermians are. It is also false as there are many scientists who believe it is about 6000 years old. SINCE WHEN IS EVIDENCELESS SPECULATION, "just trust me" "cuz I said so" objective fact? Is this the same as what so many anti-christians on wikipedia call weasel wording? It should be. It is weaseling in anti-biblical propaganda in the guise of science.

So this is what the wikipedia "community" (anti-christian propagandists) considers one of the best examples of their Wickedpedia work? They are right, it is one of the best examples of their subtle sneaking in of lies without immediately looking like hypocrites to the masses of gullible and deluded. I think you all should watch Tainted Evidence - Forensics On Trial and Forensics on Fire to get another dose of reality. Mere pretension does not make something scientific.

References:

http://media.gospelcom.net/aig/Volume_072/03.mp3
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/venus.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp

Pirate Bay and Mininova, Self-Defeating, Anti-Christain, Money-Loving Hypocrites

While posting various comments and links to my sites on piratebay, in order to be able to afford to safely upload to it without the authorities being able to pester me, some hypocrite or hypocrites decided to report me. Why hypocritical?

1. I was posting critical information that the world needed to know but is suffering and dying from not knowing: That the teaching of micro-evolution is a destructive life-threatening teaching, and that Darwin's very theft of his idea of natural selection from a Christian Creation Scientist was clear evidence that atheists could not be trusted to tell the whole truth let alone give credit to whom it belongs.

2. On piratebay exists massive amounts of space-wasting banter totally unrelated to the torrents uploaded. Often the comments or chatting is very foul. But who is reporting them for spreading hateful filthy comments that kids can easily see? No one.

3. Furthermore, you can find a huge amount of links promoting sites other than piratebay and using porn to do it.

4. Furthermore, some of my posts were relevant need-to-know comments, far more relevant than "seed plz" or mere opinions like "christians are stupid" or "great vid".

5. As can be seen from one of my blog entries, I not only defended the likes of piratebay, but I directly defended them on youtube. Some appreciate huh? But since they have played the part of Nebal; attacked the one who defended them.

6. I joined their suprnova forum to ask why I wasn't able to post urls and a moderator named Dr. something or other insulted me for asking and said basically, "You can!" and spammed his personal site which was totally unrelated to my post. Another member then posted a reply and severely insulted me for asking and excused his insult by saying that my post would be trashed anyways. I rebuked the moderator and told him that merely saying, "You can" was not evidence that I could post urls and that he was spamming. For that he banned me and his reason was "Idiot". He banned me again when I signed up a few minutes afterwards and again his reason was "Idiot" despite me not having posted anything. This is his typical behavior I found out. A few minutes later I discovered why piratebay was giving me error messages when I tried t post, it turned out that snipurl.com was banned from being posted. That sure makes me an idiot doesn't it?

7. I also learned that on that forum foul language reigns supreme as well as making jokes about abusing children, and that includes raping, molesting and murdering them.

It was days later that I then began my hours long campaign of "spamming" myself, but of course, good spam is an abomination to the wicked, and so I was banned.

And how about mininova? Is that a good site? No way. I had uploaded a book I wrote showing how all anti-Christian arguments used against Christians failed. On one attempt however I accidentally mistyped something and so unseeded the torrent. For that alone I was banned. Nope, no bigotry there. I made another account later, and one of the forum moderators got anally upset out on me when I asked for the keys to various programs. Why? He implied I was lazy and that they could be found despite the fact that I looked everywhere and could not find them which was why I was posting my request in the first place, and despite the fact that unlike so many I had carefully typed out the program names and version numbers and their location and said I was disabled. He also had to say that he didn't think anyone would help me. Isn't that just so helpful? Who cares about his stupid ignorant opinions? But this moderator banned me for pointing out he was being stupid. On top of that, for no logical reason, the word "eternian" is designated as a swear word on mininova. Imagine that, a Christian denomination name is a swear word, but not the ones of proven murderous groups: Islam, Muslim, Catholic, Mormon and atheist.

I also signed up again to use mininova's forums about two days ago. It was stupid. There was no explanation as to why you couldn't edit your forum profile, and no link or button to go directly to the forum posts. When I clicked the link to see the newest posts I got an error message. I got a few more error messages when I tried to do other things there. It was a big waste of time.

In conclusion, the owners and keepers of piratebay and mininova are clearly anti-christian bigots.

That's atheists and evolutionists for you, self-defeating, greedy, reasonless brutes.

You know who is better than piratebay and better than mininova?: Torrentreactor. They don't engage in truth-hiding and it's a lot more useful. I like Btjunkie better too.