an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Now THIS is Interesting, Could This be the Real @GodsWordIsLaw?

I was looking at the lists people have that include @GodsWordIsLaw, as you’d expect they mostly consist of ‘Dipshits’, ‘Religious Lunatics’, and ‘Twats’….but one caught my eye –

A list, containing one person, run by a Tweeter with the display name ‘baby1970’ (but actually registered as ClassyVirgo38), called ‘Me’.
Now why would Baby1970/ClassyVirgo38 have a list called ‘Me’ containing ONLY @GodsWordIsLaw? Perhaps there’s a totally reasonable explanation, perhaps this twitter user had decided to call the list ‘Mental Cases’ but stopped typing after the first two letters, or perhaps this tweeter is the puppet master pulling ‘Keith’s strings?
See the list for yourself by clicking here.

Single Post Navigation

48 thoughts on “Now THIS is Interesting, Could This be the Real @GodsWordIsLaw?

  1. Very interesting. We'll see what happens. I personally can't imagine someone further from whoever Keith is supposed to be than an out lesbian, but if "Keith" is a Poe then that would explain a lot. :)Of course, she might be just be adding Keith to he list to make you think that- I imagine that's what Keith's going to say, anyway!

  2. Yeah, it's likely that there's an explanation that makes sense, but it's still rather odd.

  3. Yes, very convincing. Except some of us already KNOW WHO GODSWORDISLAW IS… Don't we? Alex… Watch this space as another blog will be appearing very shortly, with PROOF that you are behind all of these accountm and are feeding off the attention from both sides of the fence.

  4. I also noticed the description says "rainbow" for some reason.

  5. See someone's been at the drinks already. "accountm"?Tell, us when you've got your blog up, "Anonymous". This "proof" will be most interesting.

  6. @alephnaught I'll be glad to. I look forward to exposing this nonsense, and putting an end to the speculation & endless attention seeking, once and for all. With no motive, no self interest, no bias; simply facts. Until then, I suggest examining some Twitter accounts, looking at posting times, platform used for posting, certain grammatical "tells" which will give you a good starting point for examining some of the evidence for yourself. The full proof is going to take a few days to type up and collate, and when it is done, it will be online.

  7. Oooh! I can't WAIT to see this!

  8. I wonder how is this "expose" going to work, Alex. I mean given you're in a different timezone, use Tweetdeck, as opposed to "Keith", who appears to use the Twitter website in fairly consistent time window often beyond the UK's bedtime. I suspect this is going to be less "facts" than extremely desperate innuendo..

  9. It's going to be amazing, proving that I never sleep, simultaneously post from two accounts at the same time, have mutant healing, and special powers of flight.

  10. Your "challenge" has been dealt with.

  11. Hey guys 'n dolls.Looks and sounds to me like you are in full paranoia mode. Over what? Some cretin posting God messages etc?Or is that cretin right and you are riding on his back to gain viewers here?I'm sick to death of hearing this drivel about one complete wanker but you all encourage it and feed him/her.You are not behaving in any manner that could be called rational. Why?There is no God. End of story. Why make it a bloody saga?

  12. Why make it a bloody saga?To show George Lucas how it should be done?

  13. Reynold,Do act as an adult might expect, just now and again would you? The drivel written above my post George would use to wipe up his vomit. It's repetition for repetion's sake. None of you has introduced one new thing at all and what you are achieving is simply making yourselves look like bored little boys, no thought required.Is that the longest, most detailed post you have made for a long time, by the way? Try cut 'n paste, a little plagiarism at least. Your own words are trite and boring.Run away and play with your teddies would you, there's a good boy. Or read your Bible.

  14. Hey Pail. It's called "interaction". If you don't like it, no one's forcing you to read it. Over the short history of this blog the people here have interacted with many people. If you don't like the fact that so much time is being spent on this one, we're not forcing you to read it. So instead of whining, go fuck yourself.

  15. Reynold your an airhead.It's an epic failure

  16. Oh, the old "I wuz here first" garbage.The fact you write crap, always, is irrelevant is it?Just brilliant interacting? One handed by the way, I assume.Equally, my fool, no one is forcing you to respond either. You could just admit it as we all already know. Apparently, except you.A wise man once said "If you have nothing useful to say then say nothing." I do believe you are one of those he referred to.Whining, Ray Nold? Get biblical and go forth and multiply, preferably solo.You clearly don't understand what whining is, as what I am doing is simply highlighting the drivel you pass off as writing. I beg to differ.

  17. Hypothesis:     "Paul" is "@GodsWordIsLaw" trying to "play atheist." At any rate, I agree that he is whining."Paul":     Take your own advice. You are contributing nothing.

  18. paul, cool it, or I'll start deleting your rants.

  19. <— NOT a "dipshit" or a "twat". I follow Keith purely for the humor in it. So :-P! LOL

  20. i should clarify that 'twats', 'dipshits' etc are the names of the lists Keith is in, not what i think of the people with the lists.

  21. Hi Alex,I took a brief look at this twitter user. I don’t think they are connected in any way. This twitter use, check her tweets and favorites, is actually a lesbian and a Christian. I think she is following Keith via a list because he espouses hatred towards people such as herself. My personal belief, when prompted to create a list, simply called it “me” to give it any name i.e. my list, mine, me. Whereas you or I would write “Fundamentalist Lunatics” or something quite specific for other people it isn’t the case. I could have linked a connection to a gay person who wasn’t a Christian trying to bad mouth Christianity as much as possible following a traumatic and/or negative experience but this account appears to be a Christian person. I might be wrong but the facts seem to point at something unrelated. Hope this helps.

  22. I don't think we should be worry that we are in danger of lending Keith some credibility. Even if that were possible, Keith has proven himself very capable of destroying it, as shown by his latest "I'M AN EX_GAY!!! Er, no, wait a sec [protects and deletes tweets] I WAS HACKED!!!" hilarity. So really, for me, it's now just the comedy value, as whether he's "serious" or not has become irrelevant. I'd liken to the way that Cookd and Bombd pore over Limmy's tweets. (Limmy himself is a pretty good internet troll.)

  23. FYI that account above was created 25th February 2011. I don't think its connected personally. Might be worth looking through the tweets in detail but i fear it would be a waste of time…

  24. I'd advise "Paul" or whoever that is to go and try Pharyngula out, if he's of such a sensitive nature and not just "Keith" (or whatever he is) trying to play us some more.

  25. How dumb can people be? Reynolds now says I am that moron you are all preoccupied with. Paranoia is a serious illness which requires professional help. Get some.Alex B, if you think it's Ok for these people to accuse me of being this moron then delete their posts.My "rants" are pretty much the same as what you write as items. Care to compare for yourself?Read Pbblivs detailed analysis above. Wild accusations as they are afraid of truth, about themselves. Makes me suspect they are fakes actually. Point the finger everywhere about nothing and avoid being noticed. Right!!!!

  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

  27. Paul, learn to read. I had qualifiying statements in my post because I am NOT sure if you're the same guy or not. You are right on one thing, however…people are dumb. Case in point: you.I now reiterate what I said to you once earlier: fuck off.

  28. You are implying I am, fool. That's offensive enough. Withdraw yur baseless statements if you are unsure as making statements based on "unsure" is ridiculous.I include no escape clauses as I know what you are and what you do.Withdraw or make it conclusive. You decide.I see your temper got the better of you in the previous, deleted post. Tut, tut.Your stupidity is matched only by your ability to replicate it in writing. Get a life buddy.

  29.      It is my personal observation that those who say "get a life" don't have one.     "Paul" claims that we should not pay attention to "@God'sWordIsLaw" and should leave him alone on the grounds that he is an idiot. "Paul" also seems to be indicating that the lot of us are (in his opinion) idiots. "Paul" does not leave us alone in the manner in which he suggests. I will let the audience be the judge.

  30. Is this a case of "atheist" vs "atheist" it's beautiful?

  31. Like xians have never fought amongst themselves, eh? Perhaps you should read up on catholic vs. protestant history, HA.To you, Paul…actually my earlier deleted post was too polite.

  32. Reynold instead of harrassing others you could be proving to us that you are not an airhead is it really that hard?How do those crackers in the pantry fallacy taste?

  33. I and everyone else on this blog has shot you down over and over again in the various posts you've commented in. How's about providing some evidence for some of your claims?

  34. Trinity wrote, responding to Reynold: "How do those crackers in the pantry fallacy taste?"Ahh, the fog of faith has the young lad, Trinity, off, imagining things again. Observe:"In his opening statement when he debated Gordon Stein, one of Bahnsen’s chief points was that “the existence, factuality, or reality of different kinds of things is not established or disconfirmed in the same way in every case.” Apparently some claims should be established by means of reason, but other claims are exempt from this requirement. Bahnsen found it important to segregate his god-belief claims epistemologically from other types of claims, insisting that we should not expect his god-belief claims to be verified in the same manner as we might verify other claims, particularly claims having to do with things that exist in the universe (i.e., things which are not believed to “surpass the limits of nature”). Of course, if “the supernatural” were really imaginary, we would not expect the methods we use to verify truths in the actual world to be sufficient when it comes to verifying claims about “the supernatural.” So such reservations are not surprising.To illustrate his point, Bahnsen employed his famous “crackers in the pantry” example, which achieves its aim by trivializing the methods we use to verify claims in “the ‘here-and-now’.” His point was that one cannot expect to verify the claim that the Christian god exists in the same manner as we verify the claim that there are crackers in the pantry. The existence of the crackers in the pantry can be verified by simply going over to the pantry and checking to see if the crackers are there. If we see the crackers in the pantry, then we can be sure that the claim that the crackers are in the pantry is true.But, according to Bahnsen, the existence of the Christian god cannot be verified in such a manner. Okay. How then can it be verified? He implies that the existence of his god can in fact be verified by the same mind that can verify whether or not there are crackers in the pantry. But this is where Bahnsen led the audience on a wild goose chase, never elucidating any methodology by which we can verify such claims. Throughout the debate, one of Bahnsen’s primary aims was to shield his god-belief claims from criticism (his other aim was to discredit non-belief in Christian supernaturalism), and in the present context he sought to do so by pointing to other things whose existence is not verified in the same way we verify whether or not there are crackers in the pantry, such as: “barometric pressure, quasars, gravitational attraction, elasticity, radioactivity, natural laws, names, grammar, numbers, the university itself (that you’re now at), past events, categories, future contingencies, laws of thought, political obligations, individual identity over time, causation, memories, dreams or even love or beauty.” What Bahnsen ignores is the fact that all these examples are of things that can be verified and understood by means of reason. In fact, we use reason when we check to see if the crackers are in the pantry just as we do when we measure barometric pressure, search for the existence of quasars, test gravitational attraction, etc. Reason is the common denominator for exploring all these inquiries. But reason does not help us when investigating the alleged existence of “the supernatural,” and Bahnsen’s own appeals to “revelation” confirm this. Since Bahnsen does not show how reason can be used to verify his god-belief claims, and numerous statements of his verify that the existence of his god cannot be known by means of autonomous inference from what we perceive (in fact, he says, this knowledge needs to be “revealed” to us), then it does in fact look like Bahnsen wants to reserve for himself a different set of game rules, in spite of his statement to the opposite effect."(continued)

  35. "Could it be that the method by which Bahnsen has “knowledge” of “the supernatural” is just too sophisticated to explain? It would appear not. Instead of going and looking on the shelf, as we might do if we’re in doubt about there being any crackers in the pantry, Bahnsen’s method for “knowing the supernatural” seems to be nothing more than consulting a storybook to settle questions about the existence of his god. Christians might object to this characterization, saying that it is just as geared toward trivializing Bahnsen’s methodology of confirming his god-belief claims as his crackers-in-the-pantry example trivializes methodologies used to verify claims in “the ‘here-and-now’.” But again we must ask: what exactly is the methodology that Bahnsen proposes for investigating claims about “the supernatural”? If Bahnsen never presents any methodology for investigating such claims, how can we be accused of trivializing it? And if Bahnsen does have a methodology which for one reason or another prefers to keep close to his chest, how exactly does it differ from taking what the bible says at face value on its own say so? Here we just get another massive blank-out.But notice what Bahnsen says next:Moreover, it is important to notice that (2) above is not really relevant to making a case against biblical metaphysics. Christianity does not view its metaphysical (theological, supernatural) claims as unguided or arbitrary attempts to reason from the seen world to the unseen world – unwarranted projections from nature to what lies beyond it. In the first place, the Christian claims that God created this world to reflect His glory and to be a constant testimony to Him and His character. God also created man as His own image, determined the way in which man would think and learn about the world, and coordinated man's mind and the objective world so that man would unavoidably know the supernatural Creator through the conduit of the created realm. (pp. 185-186)Bahnsen needs to make his position on this matter clear instead of clouding it with the murkiness of statements like this. He needs to come clean on this: Does man (according to Bahnsen’s view) infer the reality of “the supernatural” from what he perceives in the world around him, or not? If Bahnsen thinks so, then what are the steps in that inferential process? How does one infer the existence of “the supernatural” (i.e., that which “surpasses the limits of nature”) from the natural? As I ask in my blog Is Human Experience Evidence of the Christian God?How does that which is natural, material, finite and corruptible serve as evidence of that which is supernatural, immaterial, infinite and incorruptible? In other words, how does A serve as evidence of non-A?Or,How does something serve as evidence of that which completely contradicts it?On the other hand, if Bahnsen does not think we infer the reality of “the supernatural” from what we perceive in the world around us, then he admits that such beliefs cannot be rational, for they have nothing to do with reason. Bahnsen cannot have it both ways. Indeed, he will have to play by the same rules. If he cannot establish his claims on the basis of reason, he needs to admit this, and with that he will concede all debate." (Excerpted from "Bahnsen on “Knowing the Supernatural: A Examination of Chapter 31 of Bahnsen’s Always Ready: “The Problem of Knowing the ‘Super-Natural,’” by Dawson Bethrick, http://www.katholon.com/Bahnsen_Supernatural.htm)Ydemoc

  36. Dawson I don't care what you have to say.Reynolds anyday now life is short do you have a brain or not?

  37. Trinity wrote: "Dawson I don't care what you have to say."Yes. This is quite evident. But did you see it?Ydemoc

  38. Trinity wrote to Reynolds: "…anyday now life is short do you have a brain or not?"You are using the concept "brain," where did you get this concept, Trinity? You're using it as if you know what it is. As far as your concerned, does it have its referents in reality? Also, please give us the definition of "brain." Thanks.Ydemoc

  39. It's interesting that some people feel the need to ask me the same junk questions over and over. It's bizarre

  40. Odd, that's how I feel when talking with you, HA.

  41. Reynold yes or no?

  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

  43. Trinity wrote: "It's interesting that some people feel the need to ask me the same junk questions over and over. It's bizarre"What I write and the questions I ask are not based on "need." Unlike you, I am not bound by storybook duties which command me to act against all reason. I do this by choice, out of my own self-interest: I enjoy it; it sharpens my writing skills; I learn things; and rationally minded fence-sitters may benefit.And, as I've said before, simply labeling my questions as "junk" does not make them so. Quite the contrary: Dismissing them as you have done gives the impression that you are either ill-prepared to deal with them, or are afraid of what exploring them might do to your "Hope as Faith in the Imaginary and Belief Without Understanding." (Dawson Bethrick) And so the most comforting route for you to take is for you to disparage my questions instead, ignoring them, as if they didn't even exist. Yet there they are, out in plain view for you and others to see and inspect and interact with, unlike the god you believe in.As for my senses (and yours) they are never mistaken, as you seem to have insinuated by your questions to me — that somehow a mistake in knowledge that I've made implies that my senses are mistaken. If this is the implication, you are way off the mark, and it isn't your senses which are at fault. Saying the senses are at fault would be like saying digestion is at fault, and as such would misconstrue the nature of digestion just as it would the nature of the senses. Try stapling your mouth shut, and then come back and tell me that your senses can be mistaken — mistaken wouldn't even apply. "If I perceive an object, my senses are reliable — they are doing what senses do by virtue of their nature: responding to external stimuli, transmitting sensations to the brain, and automatically integrating those senses into percepts." (Dawson Bethrick, "A Reply to Andrew Louis," September 05, 2010) Yes, Mistakes can happen, but they are made in the identification process, not in perception.Meanwhile, as an added bonus, you have already, on numerous occasions this evening, absolutely reaffirmed the validity of the senses. And you do it every time you post something! No imaginary being need apply.Congratulations. Ydemoc

  44.      "It's interesting that some people feel the need to ask … the same junk questions over and over. It's bizarre."     This from the same person who keeps asking Reynold to "prove" he has a brain.     "Dawson I don't care what you have to say."     It would appear that Hezekiah finds the argument too devastating.

  45. Who's Dawson? Not really If anything I find Dawson Hilarious.It seems that suddenly Pv feels the need to want to harrass me.Since Reynold can't prove to me that he has brain let's see if you could Pv.

  46. Returning to the OP, has anybody asked her why @GodsWordIsLaw is on it's own in a list called 'me'? I would ask myself but don't want to flood the poor girl with the same question if everybody is asking.As for Alex being @GodsWordIsLaw, I don't buy it, @GodsWordIsLaw is either an obvious Poe, or an Obvious nut-job nobody takes seriously. If Alex was behind this I'm sure the creation would be far more subtle and less comedic.

  47. Hezekiah:     "Who's Dawson?"     He the fellow you told in your post on 4 Jan at 5:20, "Dawson I don't care what you have to say."     "Since Reynold can't prove to me that he has brain let's see if you could Pv."     I wouldn't try to convince you that grass is green. I think that everyone else here is convinced that Reynold has a brain. I'm not so sure about you, though.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: