an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Joe Cienkowski, Liar

Obama said "if political winds turn ugly, I'll stand with Muslims" & "Future doesn't hold for those who insult prophet Muhammad

Obama said “if political winds turn ugly, I’ll stand with Muslims” & “Future doesn’t hold for those who insult prophet Muhammad

The above is a tweet combining two of arch fundie dick bag Joe Cienkowski’s favourite ‘Obama’ quotes. As with everything else he says, thinks, or writes it isn’t what it appears.

The first ‘quote’ is taken from ‘Dreams of My Father’, and the context completely changes what Joe claims is being said. Here’s the full text (I have emphasised the section Joe quotes) –

“Whenever I appear before immigrant audiences, I can count on some good-natured ribbing from my staff after my speech; according to them, my remarks always follow a three-part structure: “I am your friend,” “[Fill in the home country] has been a cradle of civilization,” and “You embody the American dream.” They’re right, my message is simple, for what I’ve come to understand is that my mere presence before these newly minted Americans serves notice that they matter, that they are voters critical to my success and full-fledged citizens deserving of respect.
“Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” [Page 260-261] . . . ‘Dreams of my Father’

Notice there is not a single use of the word ‘Muslim’ in that text. Also notice that the context of what’s being said completely changes the meaning from that suggested by Joe.

What of the other ‘quote’? That ‘Future doesn’t hold for those who insult prophet Muhammad’ line? The actual text, from a speech reproduced in its entirety here, runs like this –

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Yet again, notice that the context is completely different from that suggested by Joe. Also notice that there is no mention of the word ‘Muhammad’ in the original.

Joe Cienkowski is a liar.

On Presup

Seems that here would be a good place to reproduce the bulk of a lengthy email I’ve just written. In it I explain the basic points of presubullshit, and why it is nonsense.
Hopefully this will be helpful for some –
If you’re unfamiliar with Presup, it’s simply a variation on the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) which goes as follows –
P1. For logic to exist the Christian god must exist
P2. Logic exists
C. The Christian god exists
Obviously, as you can see, the TAG is entirely circular, and rests on an unproved assertion
Eric (Hovind) has taken hold of the even dafter version that Sye (Ten Bruggencate) peddles, which goes a bit like this -Sye/Eric: I can prove that god exists. To do this I begin by presuming that he does.
Seriously – that’s the whole argument!
They usually use the question ‘is it possible you could be wrong about everything you know?’ as an ‘in’ when discussing this with non-believers. Faced with this for the first time, most unbelievers will be entirely honest and reply that it IS possible that they may be wrong about everything they know – despite the fact that they’re not. Eric and Sye will then say ‘if you don’t know everything how do you know there isn’t something that will disprove everything else?’, following up with ‘you have no certainty in your worldview, so your worldview is absurd!’. This is usually attached to ‘if you could be wrong about everything you know, then how can you know anything??’. They then claim that THEY have certainty because they have a ‘revelation’ from their particular version of their particular god. To get to that they will ask ‘Is it possible that an omnipotent being could reveal things to us in such a way that we may be certain of them?’ – the unwary may answer ‘yes’, at which point Eric/Sye have made their hit and they smugly baffle the unbeliever into submission.
Then they’ll acknowledge that, clearly, the atheist DOES know things, and that this is proof that god exists……even though it isn’t, and no matter how much they nakedly assert this it does not become true.
They will also chuck in a load of bullshit along the lines of ‘do you reason your reasoning is valid’, and ‘how do you know your reasoning is valid? Your reasoning? That’s viciously circular!’. They’ll finish by stating that the atheist actually DOES believe in the Christian god, citing Roman 1:18-21 (“18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
Now, the argument they present fails on several levels –

1. It is NOT possible that we’re wrong about everything we think we know – we can know with absolute certainty that we are thinking, as the very act of considering it self verifies. Once we have identified that we can know at least one thing for certain we can use this to confirm the Primacy of Existence, recognising that a thing has to first exist before it can consider the existence of itself or other things. The Primacy of Existence (basically ‘reality is real’) is the bedrock for all subsequent knowledge, allowing us to measure and describe the Universe, and leading us to ever increasing understanding…..all without the need for ‘absolute certainty’ that Eric/Sye claim we need
2. The Presupper claims that they are also unable to gain certainty, but that they have access to a being with perfect knowledge which has revealed himself to them. However, they face a major and insurmountable problem – by the very argument they present they CANNOT know ANYTHING for certain BEFORE they receive this ‘revelation’, including whether the source of the revelation is genuine – they have to accept the ‘revelation’ BEFORE they have the knowledge they claim they need to be able to confirm its accuracy. The ONLY way they could possibly be able to confirm they weren’t just hallucinating, or being misled by a ‘being of sufficient power’ (the ‘Evil God’ hypothesis) would be if they too were omniscient and were able to fact check the source of the revelation to verify that it’s genuine. When asked about this both Sye and Eric have floundered, whilst their fellow pressupper, Dustin Seger, mumbled out some nonsense about the revelation not being bounded by temporality! I think he was trying to say that the knowledge of the validity of the ‘revelation’ could be projected back in time or something, so that you could be certain of it before you were certain.
3. even if the presupper was able to make a valid point, it would bring them no closer to WHICH god had given the ‘revelation’, proving that it is their particular version of the Christian god is still entirely impossible – in short they are still stuck at step one.


Hopefully that’ll help if you’re faced with presubullshitters.

Jason Petersen: Liar for Jesus

I was going to write a long article addressing the torrent of dishonesty in this post from a Creationist simpleton we shall call JP, but I just can’t be bothered to get worked up enough about it. Go read it, then I’ll just answer the biggest lies.

Back? Good.

Lie 1. that I posted an ‘edited’ image of a discussion

The truth: I posted a screen shot of the first few messages from a longer conversation (which can be seen here), the sole purpose of which was to prove that I had not instigated the talk of a debate with JP. Once the full conversation was posted by the other person involved, it did nothing to contradict my initial claim.

Lie 2. that I ‘went out of my way’ to hide the other messages in the conversation

The Truth: I hid nothing, I simply posted the part that was relevant to the point I was trying to make. As you can see from the full conversation there was nothing in the ‘hidden’ part that changed any of the meaning of the section I posted. (EDIT: JP has subsequently claimed that I ‘hid’ part that showed me ‘dodging’ a written debate, but the screen shot at the bottom of this post shows that to also be a lie)

Lie 3. that I am avoiding a written debate because I am scared of JP

The Truth: I have never shown any interest in written debate, and have always preferred to be able to speak to someone live. I find written debates dull and, as I stated before, often see Creationists hiding in the format and avoiding answering questions.

Lie 4. well, not so much a lie, as JP relying on the opinion of Bob Sorensen, a man with a hatred and fear of me that verges on the pathological.

We all know Bob’s opinion of me, we also all know that his opinion isn’t worth the weight of the pixels that present it on our screens. That JP has hooked up with such an outright nutter should be enough to tell you everything you need to know!

Lie 5. that I am ‘wilfully lying’ about the debate that never happened in an attempt to gain ‘e-cred’ (whatever the fuck THAT is!)

The Truth: The only person being dishonest here is JP, who seems to be spinning events harder than Alastair Campbell in an attempt to save face in front of his small gang of followers.

To be honest, the whole of JP’s article reeks of desperation, desperation to turn events into something that they are not. Here’s his last paragraph –

“Alex should probably stop spreading falsehoods and making unfounded assumptions regarding events in which you can’t verify yourself. It might save you from being bitten on the rear again. If I were him, I’d be feeling pretty embarrassed after reading this.”

Jason, I don’t feel remotely embarrassed….well, not for me anyway! I DO feel deeply embarrassed for you after you’ve made such a meal of trying to cover your arse. Disagree? You know my Skype user name, and you know where I am.

Oh, the comments are a shower of shite as well.

Anyway, that’s enough on this blog for this year!

EDIT: Petersen is now trying to spin this further! Unfortunately for him he seems to be forgetting what he’s previously said….compare the top comment, from two hours ago on Facebook, with the highlighted section from his blog post –



ADDITIONAL EDIT: Jason is NOW claiming that he HAS debated me. So he’s flipflopped back to his original claim, the one he then stated was incorrect. How strange –

Screen Shot 2013-02-05 at 20.51.02


And another!



Might as well point this absolute honking failure by one of JP’s fans –


EDIT: More spin from Petersen today, this time claiming that a back and forth on Eric Hovind’s facebook wall was a ‘debate’. Nice try, JP, but no dice. I’m through with dealing with him, and will be ignoring the insane creationist minnow from now on.

Fundamentally Flawed, and this Blog

You’ve probably noticed that I haven’t posted much recently and, if you listen to the podcast, you’ll notice I’ve not been a regular on that either in several weeks. The reason is simple – I’ve nothing new to say.

I feel like I’ve gone ever the same subjects over and over again on here, and likewise on the podcast – there’s only so many times one can sigh at the idiocy of people who believe demonstrable nonsense.

So I think I want to quit. What used to interest me enough to write many articles a month now bores me rigid, and what used to amuse me enough to churn out hours and hours of the podcast now just makes me dread the thought of recording another show.

A few people will have noticed that they can no longer contact me on Facebook, that’s because I’ve cut the people I’m ‘friends’ with back to those I either know in real life, or those who’ve interacted enough with me for my interest in what they’ve got to say to continue. If I’ve deleted you and you feel offended by it, please don’t – I had to clear my timeline of an almost endless stream of negative posts against religion.

I don’t want to be an ‘atheist personality’, I don’t want to be known only for what I don’t believe about a single subject – ultimately it doesn’t make very much difference to the wider world….the stupid will continue to be stupid, and they will continue to try to control the lives of others. Frankly they disgust me, but I’ve lost my desire to fight them. Let them continue to deny reality in their sad little lives, I’ve got better things to do.

Writing this blog, and being involved in the podcast, feel like a chore, and I don’t want to keep doing something I’m not enjoying.

So I guess I’m through.

Taking a Bit of a Summer Break

It’s been 10 days since I last posted here, and there have been plenty of things to write about that I could have churned into a few blog posts, but I’m taking a little break instead.

I’ll be back soon, probably.

As Some of the Choosing Hats Gang Have Decided to Show Up….

…..I’ll re-post a challenge to Chris Bolt that first went unanswered back in November

1. Prove that gods exist,
2. prove that your version of your particular god is the ‘right’ one,
3. prove that I believe in your particular version of your particular god,
4. prove that Jesus Christ existed,
5. prove that he was the son of your version of your particular god,
6. prove that I believe that he was the son of your particular god,
7. read my mind to understand my true feelings towards this individual (if you’ve been able to successfully fulfill the previous 6 steps)

This was in response to Chris claiming that I ‘hate’ his ‘god’ – oddly he never responded. I wonder if he’s got some evidence yet?


Let me note that the norm from here on out on my posts will be for the comments to be closed. If you don’t like that, or want to address something that I write, then you can get your own blog (they are actually available for free on the Internet) or contact the site through some other means. I find that most people are skimming the posts and then writing on something that has already been addressed or they are writing about something totally unrelated to the post. Most comments are far too long and far too unhelpful for me to continue to allow them.

That’s Chris Bolt, writing on that den of presubullshit, Choosing Hats. The reason I’ve reproduced it here is because it illustrates an increasingly common trait on Christian blogs – banning comment. For a group that seem to think they have all the answers and believe themselves to hold an unassailable position when it comes to ‘truth’, they sure do a lot of comment banning! Bob ‘Piltdown Superman’ Sorensen doesn’t allow comments on any of his risible anti-reality nonsense-fests, $ye heavily moderates his blog, Dustin Segers long ago stopped comments (after Dawson Bethrick made an absolute fool of him), and countless other no-marks ban any dissenting commentary from their Facebook groups and websites.

I guess if they simply ignore any inconvenient facts they think they’ll go away, it’s a shame for them that the world doesn’t work that way.

Bob Sorensen, Astoundingly Idiotic

In Cow(ard)boy B(l)ob’s latest blog post he mocks some ‘leftists’ as they (according to him) ‘sob about the end of America’, yet in the previous post on his blog he sobs about the end of America himself!

It’s amazing, just when you think Bob can’t get any more ridiculous he manages to put it out of the bag!

….And Then $ye Deleted His Reddit Account!

Seems he couldn’t take the heat of being relentlessly pounded by people who think he’s full of shit.



This is from the Crown Rights Facebook page (added emphasis mine, spelling errors all theirs) –

“need to set some things straight. First the Bible says that Atheist supress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1). That means they are liars. They lie about the existence of God for the sake of their own sin. This means if any Atheist comes to you and has “inside knowledge” about Crown Rights future plans with Sye TenBruggencate and our partnership, reflect on Romans 1. Atheist are liars. Crown Rights has a lot of great things planned and we do a good job of keeping those things quiet, even from Christian brothers and sisters. I can assure you that Atheist do not have some sort of inside scoop on what were planning. Ignore any facebook messages and statuses they might post.

So to set the record straight. Crown Rights and Sye TenB are still good friends and are continuing on as always. Crown Rights is not scared of atheist tactics and threats. I can take these guys in person preaching on the street, I can take them online while they set in their parents basement just the same. No problem either way.

Crown Rights was created to be on the front lines of the war on Humanism and believes Humanism is soon to be defeated, a scab on the planet just as the Catholic Church is today. This is where we belong. Were comfortable here.

We welcome the attention, and the publicity.

For the Crown Rights of King Jesus!”

I’m starting to wonder how sane Marcus (I’m assuming Marcus wrote this) is.

Post Navigation