Monday, September 24, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
We have exclusive video of Brian Sapient showing off his jugs. He wanted me to show you guys this just to be clear:
We are proud that Sapient is upfront about his tits. They disproved the existence God and intelligent design. You're our hero, Sapient! Screw theists! Your tits did it!
Monday, June 25, 2007
Usually, the bigger someone's penis is the prouder they should be. Not with my leader Brian Sapient. He's happy that he has a smaller penis. He just had his penis reduced. He even said he had a "God-small penis" (18:22 in this audio clip). You fundy Christians say that God is infinite right? So that means Brian Sapient's penis is infinitely small. And he wants it even more smaller. Beat that, you big-sized penis Christians. The next time you see Brian Sapient at the beach don't be surprised to see him skipping along in a G-string, okay? He's covering all but a half inch of his pee-pee, because that's how masculine he is. What makes him more masculine is the fact that he has big nipples, too. He even uses it to disprove God! Beat that you wacky douche bag of a Christian.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Shocking? Not really. Those eyes on Kirk Cameron are as real as the theory of evolution.
First, we have Ray 'The Banana' Comfort who had the nerve to challenge Richard Dawkins to a debate after getting raped by the RRS. Ha! Who commits adultery now! We men and women of Rational Response Squad love rape, especially when it comes to Christians.
And now we have Kirk 'Growing Pain' Cameron committing adultery by looking at Kelly's big o' chest!
"He looked at Kelly's chest. So what? Kelly's airbags she calls 'tits' are as real as Brian Sapient's logic. So Kirk Cameron was looking at something unreal and fake."
So what? So WHAT?!?! Look at him! Doesn't it look like he's a little too "happy"? I thought so. I'm convinced that he was looking at her with lust. Everybody likes fake boobs. Kelly knew how ugly she was so she made herself look "prettier" by making herself look fake. That's logical.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk was grabbing Ray and Sapient's butt in that picture. Sapient admitted to me his nipples got hard when Kirk was looking at them. That's why Sapient brought up his nipple argument against God. He wanted to turn Kirk on. Kirk looked like he wanted to grabbed something anyway! We ought to know since we approve of rape. Grabbing someone when they don't want to be grabbed is the perfect atheistic thing to do.
Kirk, dude, I know that Kelly takes some pictures that might make you say, "OMG! wut iz she doin'?!?!", but if you look at a woman like that again, she's gonna beat you like ya stole something! In Kelly's case, it's stealing silicone implants.
So there ya have it folks! We caught Kirk Cameron red-handed. Or full-handed, ass-handed...whatever.
Special thanks to Pile for the picture. Continue to make what's real fake. That way, we can beat these pesky Christians in a "honest" fashion.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
I'm pretty sure that there has never been an atheists that knocked on Frank's door, pointed a gun to his face and robbed him or something. So why hasn't he ever posted a picture of himself? I want to point my "gun" at him, if you know what I mean. Hee-hee! That's how Miguel De Alba likes it!
What are you so scared of, Frank? Show yourself! Come on, ya chicken! I want you! Reginald Finley posted your home address on his website and I'm going to pay you a visit for a little play time. You and me, baby. Or, we, at the Rational Response Squad want to know what you look like so we can aim a gun at you and kill you off the "Mr. Gawn" way. We're happy that Falwell is dead and we'll be happy if you're dead.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
It looks like right-wing fascist Christians are questioning my buddies here:
Daddy Cool to "Atheism Sucks" sucks
Are you guys happy that he's (Jerry Falwell) dead?
You see that! That's once and for all proof that Daddy Cool loves the fact that Falwell is dead. Yeah, I know his question says nothing of the sort, but my spidey senses are tingling and it tells me that that questions says that Daddy Cool not only loves the fact that Falwell is dead but it also tells me that Daddy Cool lives on Mars and plays with red aliens. Dude, you guys have to read what the head strong Rational Response Squad had to say in direct response to Daddy Cool:
Atheism Sucks! sucks said...
Just because you're happy doesn't mean that we are.
Oh, snaps! That's so logical. In your face, Daddy Coolio! But to be truthful with you, the Rational Response Squad are happy that Jerry Falwell is dead. Notice we haven't denied it in the quote above. But that's what we want after all. Take it from my friend, Mr. GAWN (a faithful RRS member) when he said:
Fuckin' Christians, if I can't convert 'em I'll burn 'em. Learn 'em a lesson with my Smith and Wesson straight in they sternum.
From the song I would say God
That's the RRS way, man! Also, my main man, Rook Hawkins said,
"... this is what the RRS is fighting for - to free minds and rid the world or irrational people..." (source)
Yes, we here at RRS must get rid of people! Not ideology or false philosophies per se. But human beings. People! P-E-O-P-L-E! People! Christian people are better off dead. May they all die with bullet wounds to their sternum!
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
This is nothing new to me. Hell, we hear about atheists who hate the Rational Response Squad (like Jim Lazarus) so we can relate to losers like Frank. But I've always heard of Christians that hate Frank. But I'd like to post some of the stuff that the Christians from TOL had to say about Frank Walton.
Frank, you are a petty, pathetic jerk.
Calling someone a "jerk" equals hatred. Knight probably wants Frank dead now. That's ok, we can relate to that, too.
Frank is a liar and a fool...
.. Frank hurts the gospel and damages the cause for truth.
From Knight, again.
Yup, we hate it when Christians damage the cause for truth. They should let atheists do that only. But the truth is, Frank's opponent went past the word limit and Knight didn't do anything about it. I love it when moderators give the Christians a hard time! The best part was when Knight blamed Frank for his screw up! That's right Frank, because you complained about an infraction your opponent did, that was your fault. Not Knight, even though he was suppose to give a warning, but, oh well.
Frank if you read this, you brought shame to the name of Christ and gave
legitimacy to the atheists on this board and their positions. I have a feeling
we will be hearing about this for a long time. You should be ashamed of
yourself. God's truth will always prevail, you should know that!
Further, I don't appreciate your treatment of Knight, is a friend and a
brother in Christ to me. You don't even know the man, and you made some very
serious accusations against his character. I find that behavior to be utterly
inexcusable! I have always found Knight to be reasonable and he always attempts
to do the right thing. Your banning comes well-deserved in my opinion!
Ouch! PastorKevin loves kissing butt, doesn't he. Let's hope he kisses atheist butt next.
The best part was when Frank accused these Christians of not following the rules. So Frank had to cry like a baby and tell them that they were wrong. Here's more complaining from the cry baby:
Axiom-Tech (Frank's atheist opponent),
You have just broken one of the rules of the debate. As you can see in the very first post in this forum (by Knight) you were to write an opening no more than 1500 words, yet you’re opening is 1625 words (not counting the references… I don’t count those… but, uh, it seemed liked you were doing more arguing in the third reference! Give me a break!). And you wonder why I called you a moron? As far as I can tell none of the moderators warned you about this infraction, which is unfortunate, and which is why I'm posting this message myself. My sole purpose of going to a forum was to have a fair debate while being properly moderated. I will post my opening tomorrow, but if you continue to break the rules of the debate (or weasel in more arguments in your reference section), I will not continue it. I hope you would be more civil in your conduct.
Guess what happened after that? Axiom-Tech broke the rules again! Ha! Ha! And the moderators didn't do anything about that. But this is what Franky said,
This is the second time you have broken the rules of the debate! In your first rebuttal, you were to give no more than a 1,000 word reply. Yet again, like a moron, you have surpassed that number! Why should I even bother debating you if you are being unfair? Right now, I'm debating whether I should continue this debate. "Sorry" is not going to do it anymore, Axiom-Tech. There's just no more excuses for your behavior.
And why did Frank complain to the Christian moderators that they were wrong? Telling other Christians that they're wrong? That's not a right thing for a Christian to do. So what if Paul was mad at Peter? That doesn't count. Stupid, cry baby, Frank. You're always complaining about fairness. We at the Rational Response Squad knows what's fair. When we have a Christian on our radio show we have 5 people gain up against him, because that's fair. All your atheist opponent did was go over the word limit 3 times. And yeah sure, he even admitted it. But what's the big deal? I'll be your referee, Franky, and the next time the bell rings for the time limit, I'll let your opponent have the last punch at you. That's fair and you know it and you deserve it!
Is Frank Walton really a Christian? I doubt it. Yeah, sure, Christians sin all the time. But if a Christian like Frank sins, well, that automatically means he's not a Christian.
In fact, Frank was too busy debating last Sunday! And you know he broke one of the Ten Commandments: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. The great wacko, Jesus, actually performed a miracle on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees said that counted as work and said he was breaking the Sabbath. But Jesus said they were interpreting the Sabbath incorrectly. Pfft! What does Jesus know. All he is is the son of God. Big deal.
As some of you know, Frank claims to have sent Knight "countless" emails. Here's what the liar said,
From: Frank Walton
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:23:10
Subject: Thanks for banning me.
Now, if you would kindly remove our debate from your forum that would be helpful (don't worry, I have mine and Axiom-Tech's openings and rebuttals) I really don't care to associate myself with people like you. By the way, you're lying. I sent you about 3 emails about the infraction not 1 (I can forward you those emails if you want).
Here's my first email ( Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:05:41):
I guess we won't be posting our openings at the same time. Axiom-Tech insisted he post his opening first. That's fine by me. He already posted it by the way. And I think you should give it a look, because Axiom-Tech has just went over the word limit (and that's not counting his references; I don't count references)! Please, let him know about this. Thanks.
Here's my second email (Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:58:07):
Not sure if you got my last emails but if you look at Axiom-Tech's opening, it's over 1500 words long. And that's not counting the references. He has posted 1625 words! I hope I don't sound like a tattle tell but I was afraid something like this might happen. Though I treasure my relationship with Axiom-Tech I don't trust the guy. That's why I needed you guys to moderate the debate.
Here's my third email (Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:11:26):
Please, be up front with me. Are you or aren't you going to warn Axiom-Tech about breaking the rule? If not then I may not continue the debate, because the rules are obviously not being reinforced and the forums don't seem to be moderated properly. God only knows Axiom-Tech's first rebuttal will be over 1,000 words long and nothing will be done about it! Forgive my impatience but according to theologyonline.com you were in the forums today and I just don't see how you couldn't return my emails.
And finally, my last email (Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:38:07):
I took the matter into my own hands:
I shouldn't be the one posting that, you know.
Also, I also sent an email to Turbo and Polly!
You don't have to lie to your readers about me, Knightypoo. And of course you won't allow people to read my side of the story. Indeed, you are a coward. Figures.
So, why didn't Knight respond?
Why didn't I respond to your email yesterday? Because it was Sunday and I was at
Frank, dude, keep it holy. And we at the Rational Response Squad know what holy is. I mean, we're so holy we tell people to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. You're such an idiot, Franky.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
For those of you who don't know, Axiom tech (aka QXDC) has challenged Frank Walton to a debate. Axiom should have know that Frank doesn't have an honest bone in his body. I mean, look at my friend Rich Rodriguez. When he debated Frank he knew that Frank was never honest anyway, but decided to debate Frank anyway, but only to bail out of the debate because of Frank's dishonesty. Makes perfect sense, don't it? In fact, that was his excuse. And Frank, being the cry-baby that he is, complained about it. But Axiom is wasting his time with Walton who is the even worse than Ray Comfort at trying to argue the theist side. That is why Brian Sapient is going to argue with him. He's going to argue with Comfort just to waste his time. People with a life do that. And we all know that Brian Sapient, who uses his mother for money, has a life. As you can see from the following post Frank tries to weasel his way out of their exchange over 125 words!
Axiom-Tech, You have just broken one of the rules of the debate. As you can see in the very first post in this forum (by Knight) you were to write an opening no more than 1500 words, yet you’re opening is 1625 words (not counting the references… I don’t count those… but, uh, it seemed liked you were doing more arguing in the third reference! Give me a break!). And you wonder why I called you a moron? As far as I can tell none of the moderators warned you about this infraction, which is unfortunate, and which is why I'm posting this message myself. My sole purpose of going to a forum was to have a fair debate while being properly moderated. I will post my opening tomorrow, but if you continue to break the rules of the debate (or weasel in more arguments in your reference section), I will not continue it. I hope you would be more civil in your conduct. Thanks, Frank Walton
Talk about grasping for straws. All you can do with 125 words is make more arguments. What's the big deal? What Axiom is doing is throwing a last punch after the bell rings. What's the big deal? Sheesh! I can't believe this joker believes he would have lasted a micro second against my friend Rich Rodriguez. That's why Rodriguez decided not to finish his debate with him. That's pretty logical if you think about it: Rich Rodriguez would have beaten Frank so badly that he decided not to finish debating him. That's an absolutely non-cowardly thing to do. No really, it isn't. So don't go off calling men like Rodriguez a coward. He's so brave he won't debate Frank. Makes absolute sense.
Rich Rodriguez had more to say:
QXDC is one of the weakest Atheist I have ever come across, he has been regularly pwned by both Rook and I in the stickam room. Frank can't even handle a wanna be Atheist! lol!
Why do I call him a wanna be Atheist? Does this look like something an Atheist would do?
(Axiom tech on the left getting friendly with Kent Hovind)
You see, Rich Rodriguez wants atheists to not have any Christians as friends. And that's exactly what the Rational Response Squad wants. Take it from my friend, Mr. GAWN (a faithful RRS member) when he said:
Fuckin' Christians, if I can't convert 'em I'll burn 'em. Learn 'em a lesson with my Smith and Wesson straight in they sternum.
From the song I would say God
That's the RRS way, man! Screw all you, Christians!
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Now as we all know Brian Sapient said he'd only debate The Way of the Master pupils (Comfort and Cameron) if only Todd Friel was not present in the debate. Why? Because Friel is much more hard hitting than Cameron and Comfort (with all due respect to them). In fact, Sapient suggested Cameron and Comfort. You see, Sapient is still a softie.
No, Franky. You're the softie, buddy. Because you can't handle the truth. Sapient has the balls big enough not to debate some people. That's like Mike Tyson saying "I won't fight you physically, which proves I can beat you up physically." Make sense, dip stick? It sure does in an atheist kind of way.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
On April 16, 2007, more heroes left Virginia. This time they were students and professors at Virginia Tech University – 32 to be exact. And like those on 9/11, they were martyrs in a war they weren't fighting – unintentional patriots caught in a head-on clash with our culture's values, denials and degradation.
Heroes from the holocaust to Norris hall
Most have heard by now of the heroic measures of people like 76-year-old Virginia Tech professor and Holocaust survivor, Liviu Librescu, who shielded his students when the shooter tried to enter a classroom. The Jerusalem Post cited his son Joe: "My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee. Students started opening windows and jumping out." Librescu was killed by the gunman, and last Thursday he was given an honorable burial in Israel – one fit for a hero.
As one blog notes, there were several valiant students too.
During Monday's tragic shootings at Virginia Tech, college senior Kevin Sterne grabbed an electrical cord and fashioned a tourniquet to stem the bleeding from the bullet wounds to his thigh. Twenty-year-old Derek O'Dell, who had been shot in the arm, shut the classroom door and along with some other students, pushed himself against it so the gunman, who had briefly left the classroom, couldn't reenter. Twenty-year-old Trey Perkins used his clothing to staunch the wounds of bleeding classmates.
As time goes by, I'm sure that we will hear more heroic deeds. Truly, every victim of this reprehensible executioner is in some way heroic, for they were injured or died in the midst of a cultural war in which our schools increasingly have become a battleground. As Dr. Marisa Randazzo, a psychologist who contributed to an extensive study of school shootings for the Secret Service, concurred, ''... the intensity and frequency of the attacks have increased since the events at Columbine.''
Are we partially to blame?
Though one can point to Cho's own psychotic behavior and our graphic slasher media as potential contributors to his deplorable murder spree, we must also hesitate to consider how we as a society are possibly contributing to the growth of these academic killing fields. I believe those who wield the baton of the secular progressive agenda bear significant responsibility for the escalation of school shootings. Even conservatives who refuse to speak when evil flourishes must acknowledge some culpability.
... We teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don't expect them to act like monkeys. We place our value in things, yet expect our children to value people. We disrespect one another, but expect our children to respect others. We terminate children in the womb, but are surprised when children outside the womb terminate other children. We push God to the side, but expect our children to be godly. We've abandoned moral absolutes, yet expect our children to obey the universal commandment, ''Thou shalt not murder.'' Though I respect the Buddhist, Muslim and Jew who shared at the VTU convocation, our country needs to return and call out to the God of our founders, Jesus Christ. As Reverend Schenck concludes: If we are ever to restore civility in our land and our schools, we must turn back the clocks to a time when such shocking crimes didn't even exist – when we valued life and respected one another much more then we do today. We must use the Bible (humanity's blueprint for life and ''bluebook'' for value) to retrain our youth about theirs and others' value as children of God, made in His image. We must each contribute to rebuild the infrastructure of our homes, schools, and society upon respect. Instilling strong moral character is at the heart of why I started Kickstart in schools across Texas and hope eventually to fill the schools across this land.
When kids kill kids, there's something desperately wrong in the culture. No amount of laws, police officers, courts or prisons can stop a murder from happening. Only a conscience built on the fear of God can do that. Whether it's teaching the sanctity of life or God's commandment against murder, Christian leaders must tell young people that accountability for doing wrong doesn't stop with death. We will ultimately face God as a righteous judge. People who contemplate committing this kind of act need to know that.
We teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don't expect them to act like monkeys. We place our value in things, yet expect our children to value people. We disrespect one another, but expect our children to respect others. We terminate children in the womb, but are surprised when children outside the womb terminate other children. We push God to the side, but expect our children to be godly. We've abandoned moral absolutes, yet expect our children to obey the universal commandment, ''Thou shalt not murder.''
Though I respect the Buddhist, Muslim and Jew who shared at the VTU convocation, our country needs to return and call out to the God of our founders, Jesus Christ. As Reverend Schenck concludes:
If we are ever to restore civility in our land and our schools, we must turn back the clocks to a time when such shocking crimes didn't even exist – when we valued life and respected one another much more then we do today. We must use the Bible (humanity's blueprint for life and ''bluebook'' for value) to retrain our youth about theirs and others' value as children of God, made in His image. We must each contribute to rebuild the infrastructure of our homes, schools, and society upon respect. Instilling strong moral character is at the heart of why I started Kickstart in schools across Texas and hope eventually to fill the schools across this land.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
O'Reilly fails again. Hitler was a theist! But he was a self-contradicting theist atheist type of theist. Get it, Mr. O'Reilly?! For instance, Hitler said [Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953)],
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus'
doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)
And this is my favorite part:
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery....
LOL! Hey Hitler is beginning to sound like Brian Sapient there, huh? But Hitler also said,
"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold
." (p 278)
So, this is all proof that Adolf Hitler was a theist, okay? But an atheist sort of theist.
Also, the SS had "Gott mitt uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles!
And many founding fathers were not Christians. Even though they wanted Christian philosophy. But again, they were deist type of Christians. No contradictions there, folks.
Anyway, this was not a debate, people. It was an interview even though Bill O'Reilly never really asked Dawkins any questions about evolution or his best-selling book. O'Reilly did nothing but challenge Dawkins. That's an interview, people. Not a debate. And I think Richard Dawkins did pretty good. Especially the part where he said "we're working on it" when he couldn't admit where the world came from. That's the best darn argument I ever heard! All hail, Dicky Dawkins! The interview was only 5 minutes though.
Stalin did not kill because of his atheism. He wanted to have complete control (like so many atheists like Pol Pot and Mao Zedong). So Stalin wanted to get rid of anything that was already controlling people... like religion. We here at Rational Response Squad also want to get rid of anything that is already controlling people. We want complete control over religion. And, yes, we're atheists like Stalin. But before you think we're being just like Stalin, think twice! We're not, okay? This all makes sense if you were an atheist.
Stalin killed people because of his hunger for control and power, not his atheism. We at Rational Response Squad want control and power over religion so it won't screw up our society. But again, we're not like atheists like Stalin. See how consistent and well thought out we are?
Dawkins totally and utterly wasted Bill when he said:
"...Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil."But we do say Christians have theism, and it is because theism that make them evil. No double standard there. See, Dawkins was a genius.
Bill got pwned and so he tried to play it off with a laugh.
Short interview, but I enjoyed watching it.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Fascist Christian fundy Fred Phelps has to pay $3,000 to the parents of a dead Corporal who fought in Iraq. We at the Rational Response Squad are against Bush's illegal war in Iraq. Yeah sure, Phelps is against this war too, but he's a Christian so we have absolutely nothing in common with him. Stupid lame brain Christians! This Corporal died for no good cause in Iraq and we will exploit his death like Fred Phelps. That's the logical and non-hypocritical thing to do.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Who are these stupid right-wing Christian preachers to preach hope after a so-called tragedy? That's the most sickening thing I ever read or heard! We should be preaching despair and no-hope to these so-called victims. All that Cho guy did was kill a bunch of evolved monkeys. That's it! It's like what my main man Dicky Dawkins wrote:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: `For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." (Dawkins R., "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life," Phoenix: London, 1996, p.155. Emphasis in original)
That's right, we ought to dance to some Mr. GAWN (a fellow brother in the Rational Response Squad crew) music when a so-called massacre happens. The best part was when Mr. Gawn said,
Fuckin' Christians, if I can't convert 'em I'll burn 'em. Learn 'em a lesson with my Smith and Wesson straight in they sternum.
From the song I would say God
Cho must have liked that. Even Harris and Klebold at Columbine could have appreciated that. Stupid Christians! Ha! I laugh at your hope! We atheists have no hope. You know what? I hope you Christians have no hope!
Friday, April 13, 2007
Here is a fake blog Mr. Walton created masquerading as Infidel Mike: http://infidelmike.blogspot.com/
[3:37 PM, April 11, 2007 at christianpwnage101.blogspot.com]
Mr. Rodriguez is badly mistaken. Infidel Mike is a real person who is an atheist. He is a part of our staff and helps us post against Frank Walton.
And it should interest the readers that Brian Sapient actually supports us:
Miguel De Alba is a real person and is responsible for the infidelmike.blogspot.com blogsite. That's the blogsite I support.
[11:17 PM, April 03, 2007 at killtheafterlife.blogspot.com]
We are a part of the Rational Response Squad group and even have named ourselves after them. We're perplexed why Mr. Rodriguez would think Frank Walton has anything to do with us. We are against Frank Walton and everything he stands for! A quick glance through our blogsite will prove it. Mr. Walton has lied time and time again about atheism. And we prove it over and over again. We hope that Mr. Rodriguez would reconsider what he said. We are on his side and recommend you read his debate with Frank Walton. Clearly, he is beating Mr. Walton.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Check out the blog posts:
The first post on the issue.
The second post on the issue.
So if Frank Walton wants to ridicule Aaron because he would rather live in a nudist colony than in a burkha town, one must wonder... Would Frank rather live in a place where religious oppression reigns supreme? Would Frank rather live in a town where all the women are forced to wear burkhas? We think you must assume the answer to those questions is "yes." You know why, because we at "Rational Response Squad" already assume that all forms of religion are a form of suppression anyway.
We tip our kool-aids to you Aaron, just like what happened at Jamestown where a bunch of fundies drank kool-aid in a mass suicide. No parallel between them and us but we have the kool-aid! Thanks, Aaron, for wasting your time on such a dishonest moron so that we don't have to! We love you! And contrary to what Frank Walton said you are not a sexual deviant. Since you would rather live in a nudist colony rather than a burkhatown, then by definition you would rather see children naked than in burkhas! That is not perversion!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Now the Rational Response Squad got banned from Youtube. That is censorship, because they did not not follow youtube rules! Get it?
See how logical that is? I'm not judging this on any double standard. Seriously, I 'm not.
Censorship is when you don't want anybody to know what you're saying. That's why I decided to put my other blogsite for only invited readers, because I don't want everybody to know what I'm saying. See, I told you I wasn't into censorship.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Frank Walton™ made a blog parody of our blog (sort of). Well, Frank Walton didn't know that he did the parody, he doesn't even know that he did it. But I'll say that he did it anyway. And that's how evolution works. Out of nothing something comes. So out of nowhere, BAM! Frank Walton did the blog. Amazing, huh?
You can check it out right here.
To be honest, I like the blog because I love parodies. But I think Frank™ is taking our blog too seriously. This is simply a parody of his and it was meant to make him and other people laugh, because..well, it's a parody. Forget whether what we say about Frank is true or not. We don't care about the truth of Frank Walton. We just want you to laugh. That's the only purpose.
I'm not sure if it's really Frank™ (even though I'm saying it is), because the writing tone is so different. Another thing, the writer of the Infidel Mike blog tried to make me sound like a homosexual or at least very, well you know...
...then it's much better like that, alright?! And Rook Hawkins is cute!
Yeah, he had me down cold. All this time I thought I wasn't gay, but I found out after entertaining myself in estrogenic exercises... like trying to milk my neighbor's baby with my own breasts... I found out I was gay! Remember, Brian Sapient said men have tits, and I have a pair of them.
I have to admit that the blog and profile is funny. At least, 15 blogs and they're not that bad. Too bad he couldn't link me to the blog himself, though. Wait a minute, if you click "[source]" it does link to me! Oh, I'm so stupid. Curses, Frank! You got me without even trying.
But it had the same information from my myspace page and it remind me of the myspace stalker.
Hopefully, it's not a friend of Frank™ or a clone writing those blogs. Otherwise, stuff like this is still happening to good ol' Frank™. Don't take that as a threat, Frankie. But know that I encourage people to pretend to be like you throughout the whole webworld. May they say as many untruthful things about you that they can.
Anyway, I hope Frank™ is not mad about some of the things my contributors and I have written about him. Also, if we write about another theist, don't take it seriously and don't get offended.
This is simply a parody.
Even though my myspace blog says something different.
I try my best to defend atheists with my "Atheism Sucks!" sucks blog.
I thought that the reader of my blog from myspace would at least figure out right away that it was a parody once clicking to see it. Oh well.
And yes, real atheists contribute to this blog.
I still haven't finished reading the blogs from the parody, I'll get to it. They're pretty funny.
My favorite blog is this one. I liked the part where I had something up my butt.
P.S. I hope Frank can still enjoy reading my blogs and I will enjoy reading his blog posts, too.
But I have everything in that bundle of goodies except the oh so valuable picture of RRS and the Proclaim CD. And I got all this stuff for under $83 dollars. In other words, I saved.
It looks like Frank™ is so serious about his wish for the RRS to become rich and famous that he buys our products.
Thank you, my friend. No problem here. Frank, baby, you're doing that very Christian thing of being consitent.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Imagine me and my girlfriend (yeah, I know, what girlfriend, right?) at Venice Beach.
Look at Frank! Holding his wife's hand (wait, Frank is married?) while staring at her big breasts (Frank doesn't like small breasts even though he never says so here. But I'll just start a vicious rumor that he hates small thingies). His wife is better looking than my girlfriend! Well, I'll do it like Aaron Kinney and pass a law requiring that girls wear absolutely nothing. No burkhas at all! Women are better off if they objectify themselves.
Suddenly, I dump my girlfriend so I can hit on Frank Walton's wife.
Miguel: Hey Frank, your wife would look better without any clothes on.
Frank: You touch my wife and you'll regret it.
Miguel: Give me, give me! Oooh, she's so fine.
Frank's wife: Eeew, stop drooling. What are you, a pervert? Your ugly, with your skinny self. Go flirt with somebody else.
Miguel: But me so horny. Me love you long time. People shouldn't wear clothes. See, I'll take my clothes off.
Frank's wife: Hold me, Frank! The skinny shrimp thinks he's good looking.
Miguel: See, I'm naked. You should be naked and children should be naked too. No burkhas! None whatsoever. Now, let me touch your wife, Frank. Please!
Miguel touches Frank's wife's arm.
Frank: That's it!
Frank puts his foot up Miguel's skinny crack!
Miguel: Ooo, not so hard! Uh, I mean, waaaa! I'm gonna get Brian Sapient on you!
Miguel runs away.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Devin wrote to Frank Walton™ a few days ago on MySpace about "being booted" from the stickam room. I wonder if the message was really that important to Frank™, after all...he did receive that message on the 17th. Frank™ posted this blog about James White on the same day that he received Devin's message, too.
Why did he wait 4 days to post a blog about Devin being booted? Was Devin's message from MySpace important enough for Frank™ to post a blog about it 4 days later? My holy friggin' goodness! 4 days is like 4 years! It's taking Brian Sapient 4 ever to debate somebody fairly but that's okay, that' my man Sapient! But nnoooo, not for Frank. He waits 4 days. F-O-U-R. Four!
And why is Devin in our stickam room? How dare he try to challenge our thinking!
It's our PRIVATE stickam room! But we let strangers come in it all the time! Strangers like Devin.
This is what Devin says.
yeah, i pretty much sign into the group during their shows, and i point out everything wrong that they say until they kick me out
LOL! Whatever! We booted him before he can say how false our thinking is.
I'll bet that Devin always points out everything wrong that we say every time he's in the stickam room. Typical. It's pretty obvious that the moron is lying, Frank Walton-style™.
He's just making a silly claim. In fact, I pretty much owned him at FreeThinkingTeens. (I'll show you guys an example as soon as I can find one, it's pretty tough. Devin is a rascal!)
(Devin is not the only 22-year-old that went to FreeThinkingTeens to debate with teens. Brian Sapient and other 30 year-old atheists like to debate too. Isn't that silly they aren't even teens!)
There's no way that this 22-year-old that got owned at FreeThinkingTeens (and also refused to go to the RRS forum) points out the wrong stuff that we say.
He's a liar!
As for James White, I doubt that White is open to being a guest on the RRS show. He can't take 5 people all at once! That's the RRS way. That's the fair way. Just gang up on your opponents. James White, you suck!
Click here to see Frank Walton™ try his best to defend himself but gets his butt whipped! Like this part:
I find it strange you would devote two blog posts on yours truly even after you gave me the idea you weren't interested in having any further discourse with me. Looks like someone is holding a grudge. But have it your way.
"1) Lots of insults and name calling. Some good ones are baldspot, skank and nincompoop. If you can find a physical attribute that you think your opponent may be insecure about be sure to capitilize on it. Another effective approach is name calling: If you have a young women wearing anything more revealing than a burka. Calling her a slut or a tramp is a time honored and still often effective approach. "
More than a burka? That's a strawman. I don't care if a girl wears a T-shirt, but if she comes out topless that's another story. If you actually saw the footage that Kelly put herself in you would indeed call her a skank. Like most sluts she decided to flash the camera revealing all but two mosquito bites as if she had something to show. But she didn't. And did it hurt your feelings, when I revealed the obvious, Keithy-poo? Sorry, but if you couldn't tell, your comb over can't hide the fact that you're as bald as a baby's bottom. But I'll name it as I see it. If you lie, I'll call you a liar. If you act promiscuously, I'll call you a slut (or a pig if you're a male). If you cower away, I'll call you a coward. If you dodge a part of an argument, I'll call you a dodger. I'm as honest as I possibly can be, Keith.
Also, if an atheist likes to insult I'll insult him right back. I'm just using the same tone and euphemisms atheists like to use :o)
Keith, I am mean and arrogant and I will on occassion insult people. Get over it.
"2) Ask questions that make no sense and when the person your debating asks for clarification refuse. Announce yourself superior.
Examples: "Begs the question" (be sure not to state what the question is and if someone suggests it's not clear, WHAM, you win.) Another example, "How do you justify logic." Refuse to state your cryptic argument any better than this. "
You think when someone asks to justify logic that that doesn't make sense? Now THAT doesn't make sense. LOL! Thank you for revealing your incomprehension of basic and common questions more skilled philosophers would ask. I wouldn't say I won a debate if someone just doesn't understand a question though. That's an unfair assessment. When someone asks me to clarify a question, I'll do it.
"3) Set your blog comments to appear by your approval so you can pick and choose which you let through. THIS ONE'S VERY IMPORTANT."
It is, Keith. RRS does the same thing too. Furthermore, they ban people in their forums some times. They had to lie to ban me from their website. Anyway, often I would receive threats and inappropriate material (profanity, pornographic links, etc.) in my blog comments so I had no choice but to put the comments in "approval" mode. I'm not surprsied you haven't even bothered thinking that that happens, or *SHRUGS* maybe you don't even care.
"4) Try to find personal information on the person you want to tear apart. Present in a ridiculously biased manner. For instance, "With the help of his devoted girlfriend, Sapient has built a strong following that is gaining momentum from his basement!" becomes a slanderous attack on this freeloading loser who lives in his mom's basement. "
Guilty as charged. However, I wouldn't exploit personal information like someone's home address or phone number. Some atheists found out about my wife's name and our address and phone number. And guess what? We received plenty of threats. I had an atheist telling me he'd lynch my "nigger ass" while raping my wife in front of me. But if a 30-year-old lives with his momma in her basement and has no day job and only has his girlfriend providing for his expenses, well, a person like that deserves to be reprimanded. Brian "basment boy" Sapient needs a life. A man like that can hardly be called a "man."
"5) Refuse to debate the chief subject of your attacks on his forum, saying he doesn't debate on fair grounds, but still present every debate he is in, where he of course has an unfair advantage, as an example of him losing."
Where did I do that? As I mentioned I went to RRS' forum where I kicked some butt, they couldn't handle it so they had to lie to ban me (they accused me of something I didn't do). See here:
However, if an atheist was put at an unfair advantage I'd mention it. But yes, Keith, if I debate I want it to be fair. So sue me. If you're talking about my debate with Matt, well, Matt actually thought he won that debate. I even let him have the last word. But again, yes, I will only debate on fair grounds. I'm sorry, you dont like that. It may interest you but I challenged to debate your friend Brian Sapient in the following format:
Opening statements: no more than 1500 words.That seems like a pretty fair format, no? But so far, I haven't heard anything from Sapient. Will he debate me? Usually, what Sapient and his friends do when they have a guest on their show they gang up on them. It would be 5 people against 1! That's not fair. I talk about it here: http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-to-chicken-out-of-fair-debate.html
First Rebuttals: no more than 1000 words.
Second Rebuttals: no more than 800 words.
Conclusions: no more than 600 words.
Also, no links allowed. And no excessively quoting a source. No plagiarism either. I'm willing to let an agreed-upon atheist (or Christian, agnostic, Buddhist, etc.) moderate the debate.
And I'm more than willing to compromise the number of words used.
"6) Scour the internet for any examples of people holding the differing viewpoint who don't seem smart to you. Especially nice if you can find a young girl. Ridicule them and hold them up as an example of this viewpoint."
When did I do this? Please, give me an example. I do the opposite though. For instance, I've named plenty of atheists who hold differing views than me and commend them for their philosophical work. I'll give you names and examples of when I did this if you like. But to start you off, I have on occassions praised atheists like Jeff Lowder.
"7) When your immature behavior and innabillity to even draw much of an audience to begin with leads the subject of your hatred, er, sorry I mean the subject of your intense God inspired love to refuse to be bothered with you announce that he is afraid of you. The more he doesn't notice you or ignores you completely the more he is afraid of you, even as he debates scholars who you admire. Scholars who of course make a fool out of him, see #5."
When did I do this? Can you give me said example? Maybe you're thinking of the plagiarist, Rook Hawkins, who refused to debate JP Holding on fair grounds. I write about it here:
Say what you want, but Rookie won't debate him fairly.
Thank you for your time, Keith. I just hope you would be better in assessing other people though. Because what you did was knock down a straw man. I have to say though, it is rather humorous to know that I'm getting on your nerves. I hope you don't lose more hair over me though.
Uh, oops, Frank wrote that. Curses Frank! You suck!
Monday, March 12, 2007
I used to go to the same church as Frank Walton. We all pretty much thought he was gay, or at the very least very, very effeminate, plus he was always quite silly, yet had no sense of humor. His parents have a bit of money, and they always seemed a bit embarrased that he always did so poorly in school. I think he's a bit mentally challenged; he just always came across kind of dumb. I don't mean that in a mean way. He could toilet and feed himself. But I remember his folks got him a job as a target greeter/bag boy/guy who brings a big item to your car on a flat cart. He did help me get my big TV in my Honda by cutting it out of the box. I haven't seen him there for awhile. He still lives with his parents and the college he's attending is one of those bible correspondence things. I wouldn’t be surprised if he's got a doctorate by now; too bad he can't spell or use the English language.
I wish he'd find something else to do. He really is an embarrassment to his folks
That is so funny!
Check out The Uncredible Hallq's blog and read the blog comments.
Here is another one from Cory.
I'm the real Corey, and yes, Frank is mentally challenged. He works at the car wash now I think. I heard somebody in the neighborhood mention it. I haven't seen him myself though.
I always thought that The Frank Walton™ would at least have a job as a crash test dummy, because he's better off dead.
Anyway, another Corey Washington said this in Frank Walton's blog:
I'm the real Corey, and yes, Frank is mentally challenged. He works at the car wash now I think. I heard somebody in the neighborhood mention it. I haven't seen him myself though.
Hey, it looks like my clone is lavishing me with more attention. Ted Bell, thanks for making Chris Hallquist look like an idiot. Best of all you used my name. Thanks.
The real Corey Washington
Hey, wait a minute! That doesn't mean someone else was pretending to be Corey, was it? Nnnaaahh!
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Frank Walton™ admitted in his blog, 'Brian Flemming's "teapot" questions', that he needs evidence to believe.
8) What is the minimum it would take for you to believe that there was a flying teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars?
Just check out the blog comments. All those stupid theists don't seem to get the point of Flemming's Teapot questions.
Still...I wonder why Frank Walton™ needs evidence to believe. That's strange. Hmm, I guess, that means he doesn't have blind faith because he needs evidence to believe. That's the most illogical thing I ever heard!
Monday, March 5, 2007
After a hard day's work, I was about to go to sleep and I was like, "Screw it, let me check out Frank's blog right quick".
The first blog I read was "Richard Dawkins - the cry baby". As I was scrolling down to post a comment, I noticed that Frank had another blog I've never read before.
Check it out, Christians.
"I encouage Christians to take the Blasphemy Challenge"
Notice how Frank Blogton spells encourage.
What a way to start off the blog!
That's right! You heard it from me: Frank Walton. I would like you guys to take the blasphemy challenge. Best of all you get a free copy of The God Who Wasn't There DVD.
The DVD is optional. But don't let anybody tell you that. We never mention that it's optional in the blasphemy challenge site. Not even oversea atheists know that they can't get the DVD because we don't deliver overseas. It's a great way of weaseling gullible atheists to take the challenge for nothing in return! Ha! What a bunch of tools.
But the whole point of the Blasphemy Challenge is for atheists to come out of the closet and piss Christians off. That's all. Forget about being mature, logical, and nice. What's that? We're in your face. And we only do it to piss you fundies off!
Yeah, we said that we will keep doing this Blasphemy Challenge until the end of Christianity, but again...we said that to piss Christians off, too. Who do you think we're kidding? Do you think we can actually end Christianity? Hahahahah!
It's a hilarious documentary that actually thinks it's telling the truth. Personally, I had a good laugh after watching it.
Wait a minute. How did you get a copy? Oh, I guess you can rent it at a DVD rental house. Naaah! I don't think that's possible.
Here's the thing though, when you say "I deny the Holy Spirit" you don't have to mean it - you could say it demonstrably.
I'm starting to wonder why you really wrote this blog. Yeah, Okay, it's so Christians can get a DVD. Whatever....
But since you don't think that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin, all I can tell you is this...
Mr. Blogton, you would be shocked to know that a Christian member at FreeThinkingTeens would agree with you.
I'm going to sleep now. Bye! :)
Friday, March 2, 2007
Last year, I wrote a blog about some dipshits that wanted to fight me and my brother..well, one of those guys is back, his name is Tony.
I must warn you, if you're going to click that to see his profile, let me inform you that his default picture is a woman performing cunnilingus on my mother. That's right, my momma was a ho! That's what you get from RRS. Kelly - a ho! Brian Sapient - a male ho! You best recognize. We're a gang full of hos. And we follow my mom's example, because she opens her legs for everyone.
Tony sent me a lot of messages and here is the list of the things he called me:
1. Darwin dick sucker.
2. "Your a gay nerd." (Yes, the punk spells you're like that.)
3. Italian greeseball.
5. Pussy. (Even though I invited him to fight me in a mixed martial arts fight and he took me up on that challenge then I declined.)
6. Power Ranger wanna be.
10. Gay Frenchmen.
12. Gay ass weird kid.
13. Bitch ass.
14. Nazi. (Yes, the asshole called me a Nazi, because I love Hitler.)
15. "Your are my gay son." (I kept correcting him about his spelling and grammar. I mean, I corrected him on his spelling and grammar.)
16. "You are 60 pound virgin."
17. Pepe Le Pue.
18."You look like a serial rapist/killer."
And the list goes on.
He kept getting pissed at me for correcting his spelling, too. I'm not going to post the whole message, I'm too scared too. It may make me look bad.
So yeah, I get a lot of hate mail from Christians and a lot of weird chain-letters, too. But I learn from them and give hate mail to Frank Walton all the time. I dedicated a whole blogsite to him, too!
In 1492, an old young girl named Peewee Herman came to America in a spaceship from the planet of Africa. A well known television personality killed her by basting her in a toaster oven with some orange juice, onions, and south indian curry. Now that you have read this message she will come to your home, sleep in your beds, eat your food, and never give you any respect.
But somebody needs to start teach my mom how to "talk gooder".
Gahh! Letz talk goooder!!
That's right, mommy. It's time for the typists to learn how to "talk gooder" if they want to talk crap to someone, especially if they're serious about something.
I had to block Tony from myspace because he's good at whipping me in debates.
I always wondered why people care about their picture and voice comments so much. So, I did one too. The most likely reason is because it boosts their self-esteem.
Yeah, that's what it is...
They have a self-esteem problem. So, I did it by posting my ugly pictures too. And now I feel better :o)
But do they care about the quality of the comments that their friends post on their pictures and do they care about how retarded their friends sound on the voice comments? I'll criticize anything, even my slutty mommy, so if you ever have a voice comment, I'm going to listen to the voice message, just to see if your friend is retarded like my mom.
What's wrong? Are you getting mad because I'm judging people? Well, you put the darn voice comments on your page for a reason, so visitors of your profile can listen to them. That means that you can't stop me from saying and writing what I want because you made it available for an asshole like me to listen. See, I admit it I'm an asshole.
Voice messages have been bothering me for a while. Usually, some dumbass who thinks he grew up in the ghetto starts off the voice comment like this:
"Yo! wut it do baby? itz ya boy, (Insert initial here)-hoova, wut u know bout that?! ya heard me?!!"
Sometimes I try to imagine what the person looks like and as I'm doing that, I'm also trying to figure out what they're saying. But they end up looking like this...
Seriously, I can't stand the voice comments. Before you know it, we will have spam voice comments too.
Now, imagine some dumbass calling you about who is looking at your damn profile. Sucks, huh? I'll have to look at people post bulletins, complaining about these darn spam voice comments.
Then they will get tired of their voice comments, but at least the operator talks better, I mean...'talks gooder' than most of their darn friends.
I'm getting sick of today's youth. I'm a youth and I'm sick of myself!
Stupid kids can't even read a book unless it's a coloring book without words. I ought to know, I am a youth.
Speaking of stupid, in the United States, MOST of the people here believe that the Earth came out of nothing!
It reminds me of RRS.
Seriously, a survey said that the people who didn't believe in ghost was because of this: NO EVIDENCE OF GHOSTS!
Even though I don't believe in ghosts, I have seen people on TV present their evidence like pictures and videos of ghosts. No evidence for god, so far. I mean, he's invisible right? So why don't they have picture of that?! Just tell me!
I just hope most of the dumb kids today don't get any dumber.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
He's lying, again!
Anyway, let's debunk Frank's blog. Now, Frank said that Brian Sapient avoided a debate with Todd Friel.
Brian Sapient avoided a debate with Todd Friel by claiming he "doesn't have anything real new, he's uninteresting, he's dishonest, and he does a lot of interrupting, a lot of commercial breaks when you're saying important stuff, he does a lot of quote-mining..." etc.
I already wrote about this in my other blog:
Yesterday, on The Way of The Master radio, Todd Friel said that Brian Sapient "...won't agree to come on the show."
Ray Comfort was out of the studio when Todd said it and came in 20 minutes after the comment.
Where was Ray to expose Todd's lie? Sapient agreed to come on the show if Ray AND Kirk were going to be there. You can download Brian ripping Todd a new one, right here. Just right-click and save it.
By the way, Todd is a stupid name, it's obvious why he turned out so stupid. LOL! That's logical, stupid name=stupid person. Remember that.
Todd is known for getting his butt kicked in debates like with The Infidel Guy and Dan Barker. Todd cut HillbillyAtheist off the air when he appeared. Hillbilly never complained about that, but you know... Todd Friel sucks anyway. Okay, I admit it, Friel told Hillbilly that he had to cut his interview short! But it sounded like he interrupted him! Honestly, it did! You can check out what HBA had to say about his appearance on Way of The Master, right here.
And Todd getting his ass handed to him by Dan Barker here.
Update: Brian just received an email from Ray Comfort. It looks like Sapient won't go on the "Way of the Master" radio show. See, Todd Friel wants Sapient on his show but is too chicken to have him on his show too. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Update: Stupid Frank Walton has something to say about this here and here.
Sapient would rather debate Todd's bosses (Ray and Kirk). Ray and Kirk aren't as tough as Todd Friel but still.
That's 2 on 1. Right, Frank? Because you also said this...
3. Don't do one-on-one debates. Instead, have you and your friends debate your lone opponent.
As I said above, Sapient will gladly debate Kirk and Ray, all by himself. They're very easy to debate. Friel is too tough.
Do you still want to call him a coward?
4. If you find out an opponent of yours is a darn good debater, avoid debating them by lying about them. Say that he's a a quote-miner, he's too easy to beat, he's a plagiarizer, or a liar, etc. By ruining their reputation it'll make it look like they are not worth debating.
I've seen how the members from TheologyWeb debate. What does TheologyWeb have to do with this? I don't know!!!! But I'll bring it up anyway. They suck!
Back to tearing Frank's blog a new one...
6.Make sure your opponent is as shallow minded as they come, or unprepared, or naive.
That's right, only debate those you know you can beat. Don't debate those who are good thinking theists. That may leave an opportunity for your opponent to outsmart you. And you can't have that happen. But if that happens, again, gang up on him. Got to rule #3.
LOL! What a liar! They have me to back up Frank Walton and lies and I'm not shallow at all. This blog is proof of that. Also, Ray and Kirk, they're not shallow. No really. They're PhD quality, baby! They're so not tough that Brian Sapient will debate them.
At TheologyWeb, (which has nothing to do with what Frank said), the theists gang up on the atheists, just like how atheists gang up on theists! Just look around the forum for 2 seconds. (Random thread!)
3. Don't do one-on-one debates. Instead, have you and your friends debate your lone opponent.
Always, gang up on your opponent. Remember, it's easier to beat up a guy when you have more people with you. Brian Sapient usually has 5 (that's right, 5, including himself) people against a lone Christian. 5 against 1! Can you beat that!
Brian has said that he will take on Ray and Kirk by himself and he's been waiting on Ergun to respond for over a week. And guess what? When Ergun Caner came on, it was 4 "Rational Response Squad" members (Brian Sapient, Rook Hawkins, Kelly, and Brian Flemming) against Ergun Caner. Ha! And Frank Walton complains that the almighty Rational Response Squad debates 5 against 1 measly Christian.
Now that you know how to be a lying chicken the Frank Walton way, it's time to learn how to debate the TheologyWeb way!
Are you ready? Here it goes.
1. Lie your ass off.
2. Grow it back.
3. Lie it off again.
That's right! It's that simple! LOL! Yeah, I know Frank Walton doesn't own theologyweb.com but we'll just use it anyway.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The following screen shot is from Frank's 'I've been tagged' blog.
Now, I'm not trying to say that Frank thinks Bruce Lee sucked as a fighter...but as an atheist!
That's right, Bruce Lee was an atheist.
I'm pretty sure that Frank likes watching Bruce Lee's movies and everything. But does he care that Bruce was an atheist?
Just check out Frank's blog headline.
(If you’re an atheist and you’re reading this, don’t take yourself too seriously, okay? We love ya, but we hate your philosophical views.)Wait a minute, that means he loved Bruce Lee! So, I guess he didn't think he sucked. Well, he thinks his philosophy sucked.
Anyway, I'm a real big fan of Bruce Lee and I wish he was still alive, too. I don't follow his Eastern Philosophy though. That sucks. Hmm, I guess that means I think Bruce Lee sucks! Oh, no!
Monday, February 12, 2007
Maybe they also know about how he blogs on "atheismsucks" with such an immature online persona it's no wonder that Frank Walton has parents that are dismayed by him. Poor Frank Walton, does someone need a hug? Can't handle slutty women, can't handle parents, has a mind disorder (theism), and spends his days writing to atheists online linking them to his crappy blog all day... what a pathetic excuse for existence. What a pathetic excuse for a Christian. It's no wonder the Rational Response Squad equates theism with a mind disorder, they even said that Martin Luther King Jr had a mental disorder. Cool, huh? Here you have a Christian who let's the world know with almost every correspondence that Christianity is indeed a religion of intolerance. Good job Frank, keep helping people to see why Christianity does nothing to make you a good person.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Anyway, when I was done reading, I noticed that he had 4 comments at the time, so I decided to read the comments and check out what his readers had to say. As it turns out, Frank is married!
I don't understand! Just look at his comments.
He talks about having a wife. That is so hard for me to understand. He's married? Wait a minute, he's married and has a wife. Hmm, so does that mean he's married and has a wife? That's just so hard to understand!
Frank's myspace tells another story. His myspace says he's "single". But he told a guy named HGissufficient that he put single in his myspace because not everybody in his group is married. See. That is just so hard to understand.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
In an interview in 1997, Richard Dawkins was asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." Apparently unable to answer, he paused a long time and finally responded by changing the subject.
- According to Dawkins, he paused because the question revealed that the interviewers were creationists, that he had been duped about their motives. He paused to think about how to handle them, and the change of subject occurred due to the several minutes when he confronted them being omitted from the video (Dawkins 2003).
- The question is equivalent to asking how complexity could evolve, which Dawkins has covered in at least four books (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, and A Devil's Chaplain). He has answered the question at great length.
- The ability of a single person to answer a question is largely irrelevant. The scientific literature is rife with examples of information increasing.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Frank's new blog, 'Mocking thoughts on the Blasphemy Challenge', is hilarious!
LOL! He posted some video of his funny-looking friend, Calvin, who gave his thoughts on the Blasphemy Challenge. Oo0o0o0o0h!!! He's not as funny as Rook Hawkins though. Just kidding, Rook.
Listen guys, some of the reasons we started the Blasphemy Challenge is to piss Christians off and help some people come out of the closet as atheists, ok? We're not here to be logical. We're here to be jerks. Also, it's just been televised that Christians are pissed! They're not really fighting back though, Frank, and I'll explain why.
But first, just look what pissed-off Calvin said about the Blasphemy Challenge in that stupid video on Frank's blog.
..And it's just the worst, most in-informed, ignorant..piece of bleeping(He was rubbing his eyes/forehead, pulling his hair, and his face was turning red while he was saying that.)
blooping in the world. That's it just..it's just funny!
Anyway, Calvin said "in-informed" in the video. What?!?
It's uninformed, idiot!
....Okay, maybe he did say "uniformed" and I heard him wrong. But still, it sounded like in-informed, okay?!
Now, here's something Frank said in the blog.
"Come to think of it, the Blasphemy Challenge did more damage than good
for the Rational Response Squad and for atheists in general. "
Wrong, Frank! We've been labeled as a bunch of fascists for atheism. That's good, okay? We make Nazis look like sissies.
'Praise the Lord Challenge' is friggin' stupid, though. People praise the lord all the friggin' time at church! You know what we atheists do? We praise mother nature. Beat that! Nature brought us into being out of nothing. Because out of nothing something came, alright?!
And who the hell is scared to come out of the closet as a Christian? They're everywhere, you moron! And we're here to make fun of them publicly so they'll go back in their stupid closets.
Read what I wrote earlier about the reasons we started the Blasphemy Challenge.
"Listen guys, some of the reasons we started the Blasphemy Challenge was to piss Christians off and help some people come out of the closet as atheists, ok? Also, it's just been televised that Christians are pissed!"
There ya go! Is that too hard for you to understand?!
Also, 'Challenge Blasphemy' is not the powerful message theists think it is. In fact, Chanman (former theist) was banned like about 3 times from the Challenge Blasphemy forums because of his comments about evolution, the Big Bang and his refutation of Pascal's Wager. But that doesn't beat what the Rational Response Squad does. You know what we do? If you are too good of a debater, we'll lie to ban you. It worked with Frank Walton.
Because I know you can't! :-D
Now, this is the funniest part of Frank's blog.
The responses to RRS has grown and from the looks of it, it ain't
Only 17 videos? Okay, maybe you guys grew to over 46. Big deal. So keep growing if you want.
It ain't stopping? That's a premature assumption from the looks of it. But ok...
Look at how many videos WE have. Yup, that includes the videos where Christians refute us. But we'll include them anyway to make us look better.
How can you stop us? Boy, we haven't even started yet! ;-)
I just hope, that one day...Frank will realize how stupid he is.