TWeb Hall of Infamous Fundamentalist Atheists!
TWeb is one of the most fascinating places to surf on the net: It has literally become an attractive
magnet for fundamentalists (both believers and skeptics) that come in every shape and size known to man. The fundamentalism
of these individuals ranks so high it stops nothing short of what could be described as iconic. It is absolutely incomprehensible
that anyone would actually attack Holding's rebuttals to many of his atheists critics, as the unimaginable stupidity and inane reasoning
is almost too much to bear even pointing it out to others. Alas TWeb is a place for the incredibly dimwitted and intellectually
shallow to come and espouse typical rants about "sky fairies", "Bronze-Age superstitious sheep herding-illiterates" and so
on and so forth. The title of 'fundamentalist' as commonly defined by the atheistic perspective is justified when examining
some of the most popular atheist members on this particular site. Although I could certaintly go into elaborative detail on
fundamentalist believers, I thought this would be unneccessarily redundant because too often when people think of the word
'fundamentalist' it becomes synonymous to 'religious' or, religiously zealos. Here, for the sake of breaking a double standard,
I will list some of the aliases of TWeb's most fundamentalist atheists and their wonderful track records for anyone with an
average intelligence that might be a newcomer to TWeb to read into the details for themselves to get the whole picture. Here
"jimbo" - A famed atheist critic of JP Holding who also goes by other internet aliases such as "Mr.
Kringles" and the author of popular anti-Holding websites often cited by skeptics to demonstrate that Holding is an insensitive,
pompous jackass. In reality, his name is Brooks Trubee, an atheist lookalike of Kevin Spacey because of his shiny bald head.
member11491 - An administrator to the official forum to the godawful whacked "JesusNeverExisted.com" website spawned by "ex-college lecturer, ex-photographer" and "ex-computer
salesman" Ken Humphreys (whom is known by many nicknames, my personal favorite being "The Hump"). Member calls
JP Holding "the Hutt" while having a picture of the ol' Jabba himself on his avatar (as evidenced from the little icon posted
to your left under his alias of this particular description), has a hard time believing
HyperBrain - HyperBrain outranks all of the other fundy atheists
we deal with by a longshot, primarily due to these here pointers:
1) His first is titled "How come paul never heard about Jesus" and if you are at all familiar with the many arguments about how Jesus never existed, then you'd reasonally assume that
this thread makes it out that New Testament author Paul never wrote about Jesus in the physical earthly sense but instead
depicted him in more of a spiritually symbolic dimension. He gives us more evidence of how popular and widespread this discreditted
crap is providing a link to a YouTube video by Christian-turned atheist "ridi0t" the idiot.
2) In the same thread, HyperBrain admittely states that he believes Rook Hawkins (egotistical co-founder
of the "Rational Response Squad", or...the Retard Response Squad, as I refer to them) to be a geniune scholar of ancient history.
3) After HyperBrain was becoming frustrated with himself he posted this:
Even some of our other fundamentalist atheists had a hard time believing all of this was sincere. LGM
Not bad...I give it a a grade of 7 out of 10.
You obviously had some of the Christians fooled here.
Good luck with your next sockpuppet parody.
LGM of course still struggles with some major problematic isssues of course, and that is to see that
it is indeed possible for skeptics of Christianity to possess a brain the size of a cashew.
I followed up with a private message addressed to HyperBrain in hopes that he wouldn't spoil the
fun for myself and some others by leaving TWeb for good:
Salutations retard. Be sure to give Rook Hawkins my warm invitation.
As luck had it, my efforts actually checked out:
I dont personaly know rook hawks however you can see a lecture of his
hereAparantly he is getting his book peer reviewed which means fellow scolars like is work and only scolars
are allowed to do lectures.
It could be that...OR, chances are that Rook gets so much publicity due to the fact that the RRS
is successful in milking money from gullible dopes like yourself?
And the exchange continues:
TBT: You never answered my question by the way. If Rook is such
a scholar, where is the ORIGINAL RESEARCH that he has conducted? Scholars earn that title by publishing an original thesis.
Another thing is that that doesn't count for much of a "lecture". It's not a university or a public-access insitution
that is involved with the academic world. It's an atheist organization. Big whoop.
HyperBrain: Ah - the hypercritcalness of christians. first
you tell me that no scholar supports what rook says. well if nobody supports what he says then what he says must be origional
.Then you tell me that he isn'ta scholar because nothing he writes is original!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is it?
TBT: No, you don't understand what I'm
saying. Rook considers himself to be an "historian" because he reads allot of books (you don't just become an expert on history
by readining books). Because of Rook's lack of any formal training or discipline in this field, he uses poor reasoning which
he considers to be sophisticated and erudite. He isn't capable of applying himself like a true historian does, because he
has had absolutely no vital education of any sort. Being that he is an atheist uneducated historian, he bases his assumptions
off of his presuppositions, and calls book-reading "research" equivalent to the doctorate level.
It all depends on
your methodological approach and what you have in mind of seeking. Historians cannot logically go after the disproof of historical
figures, or show that they never existed in the first place as this is viritually impossible to accomplish. Saying Jesus or
Muhammad never existed is like saying evolution cannot account for the amazing details of the bacterium flagellum. Get where
I'm going with this?
HyperBrain: You really are an idot. ofcourse a historians can tell if someone never
existed - have you ever head a historian saying if merlin etc did or did not exist? clearly a historian can tell if someone
existed. Rook uses evidence to establish the truth.
if your not a christian then im suprised you dont treat christian
scholars with the same hatred that you treat intelligent atheist scholars with.
i cn spell ldiot. stop looking at my typos and look at my argument. I have evidence that jesus didnt exist, for example the
fact that paul (effectivly) admits hat he has never heard of tyhe guy. the fact that there is an obvious gap in the evidence.
etc etc etc etc tetc
TBT: Argument from silence, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc......
And Paul never speaking
about a physical Jesus is just retarded. Did you ever read in that thread where I posted about why context and environmental
setting play a key role in the composition of a text? Also, you have to deal with the fact that there are four seperate manuscripts
that come after Paul speaking about a physical Jesus. Why do you think that is especially when the gospels were written in
different languages ranging from Aramaic to Greek?
This is the last response I've received from HyperBrain, and I was almost unsure if I should have
considered responding to this, given the fact that it was so incredibly stupid:
HyperBrain: YES ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE IS VALID
O.K, stupid, is the fact that
I haven't mentioned the fact i have two heads evidence that i don't have to heads? There we go - you accept evidence from
silence in msot situations.
Here is what I call a whopper of stupidity:
On a side not - why do you have a link to an atheist blog in your signature?
Or do you go flitting about with a split personality between athsim and sky fairyism?
The so-called "atheist" blog in my TWeb signature was the "Debunking Crap" blog,
an intended parody of John Loftus' ovverrated "Debunking Christianity." I shouldn't
expect HyperBrain to know any better, as a proud initiate of the RRS cult, he makes the same (very stupid) blunder that Kelly
(Brian Sapient's concubine) made when she came across the blog. Yep, they really are that stupid.
After I exposed his shallow analysis of the Debunking Crap blog, HyperBrain has remained hesistant
to reply to my latest private message, and in order to save face, commented on the blog:
to be honest everyone at theologyweb are idiots - particualy you.
March 13, 2008 5:55 PM
Hmm....EVERYONE at TheologyWeb "are" idiots? If that's the case then he must also be referring to himself,
and in that respect I agree with him 100%.
4) HyperBrain reveals his ignorance of world religions by his very signature (current signature to
date): We're all atheists when it comes to Zeus, Muhammad,
Buddah and Appolo ... some of have just gone one god further.
Perhaps Mr. Hawkins the brilliant historian can help enlighten DiaperBrain (registered trademark
of TWeb user "TolkienFan") on what differences there are between Christianity and Islam and Buddhism. But just for the sake
of heart, I'll quote some reliable references on the status of their "divinity":
Muhammad: "[Muhammad is] founder of the religion of Islam,
accepted by Muslims throughout the world as the last of the prophets of God." (emphasis added).
Buddha: "These writings recognise neither a presiding deity nor a divine Saviour. Nor
do they speak of a Creator God or any permanent substratum of existence, envisaging instead a cyclical universe passing through
origination, duration, destruction and annihilation to a new origination." (emphasis added).
It appears HyperDumbass has no clue that Muhammad nor Buddha are worshipped as gods or godmen
by the followers of their religious movement(s). Thus, he makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when he states that he
is an atheist when it comes to Muhammad or to Buddha. Ah well....small perspectives require only small minds.
Doubting John - We've already gone through some details concerning John W. Loftus
right here. But just to give a brief summary on who this individual is, he's famous for being one of the most anti-Holding atheists
that actually takes the time and effort to express himself on a web forum while busying himself with "Debunking Christianity",
however that might be achievable. As evidenced in my previous article covering John, he has committed recent acts of intentionally
deceiving his audience and retaining a sort of self-delusional state of denial in his psyche'. To be fair, John spends most
of his time not even concerned with Holding and instead obsesses over the alledged positive reviews he has received from popular
Christian apologists (such as Norman Geisler) supposedly stating that his book should also be a reader's recommendation
for believers and not just skeptics. That, or John will hang out in the "Apologetics101" section of TWeb's boards posting
threads containing the most inane of arguments in the categories of theology and philosophy to such an extent that it may
even disturb your children. John considers himself to be a "doctor" of philosophy, even though he admits that he has only
three masters degree in divinity and philosophy, of which he sugarcoats to be "a PhD equivalent." Needless to say, Captain
Philosopher has some seriously faith-shattering arguments up his sleeve. John wants you to think in hypothetical terms of
reality, or, in other words, how the Christian god or any theistic notion of god for that matter could have created the world
differently. What types of hypothetical situations are we dealing with here? John argues that all living life should have
been created vegetarian, so as to stop the vicious killing of other animals and to prevent death.
LGM - If there is anyone who could be called bitter as in the "piss and vinegar" sense, LGM would
be the perfect nominee of choice. LGM's intelligence goes as far as the whit he puts into his usual to-do rhetoric, and anything
having to do with the Bible is nothing more than a book written by scientific illiterates and superstitious bone-in-the-nose
tribespeople. Of course, LGM is entitled to his opinion freely and opengly, and I cannot try to invalidate his own personal
opinions, or demonize him simply because he is an atheist. No, LGM's fundamentalism is not a result of his personal belief,
rather a reflection of his own personality reinforced by his personal beliefs. In short, LGM could stop right
at the point where he comes up with as many nasty words as possible when it comes to the Bible, but LGM would rather insist
on being vitroilic towards most if not ALL of the Christians on TWeb, as I have yet to see for myself a moment where LGM would
consider his opponent (where disagreement in beliefs may be concerned) on an equal level of rationality and or intelligence
to the point where the discussion may hit on the beliefs themselves, not on the people adhering to those beliefs.
Yet, anticipating such is a vain expectation of LGM
John Powell - A scientist of astronomy who ironically throws his deductive thought
to the wind by hopping on the bandwagon with the rest of those whom call themselves 'Jesus mythicists.' To be fair here, Powell
has yet to express any sort of feeling that it is 100% assured that a real historical person was behind the New Testament,