Thus Spake "Zod" a Rooster

I don't usually edit comments I post and I don't usually post comments that are pointless invective, especially when they attack someone other than me,  but this one is such a good example of the typical blog atheist method of thought and so revealing of what a bunch of phonies they are that I'll make an exception, leaving the name of a third party out.

This is from "General Zod" the fake name of someone who used to post comments at Eschaton but who I a. believe was banned by Duncan Black for some reason I don't know, b. I have come to believe is just one of Steve Simels' many sockpuppets that he posts under but who might be a "real" person.   By the way, his declaration that he'd never post another comment here lasted a grand total of eight days.  Just as I was getting used to the absence of Simpering.

I'll go through it piece by piece.

Did you figure out a way to prove your flying invisible sky wizard is real, or are you going to resort to 7 paragraphs of unmitigated bullshit? 

If what I wrote was "bullshit," I have yet to have either "Zod" or Simels or any other atheist refute anything I said.  Nor was what I said any attempt to "prove" the existence of God.  I don't do "proofs" of God's existence.  Since "Zod" also said pretty much the same thing over the few pieces I posted about what Roger Penrose said on the issue of what is real, proof of that kind only works in one of the three realms of reality, pure mathematics.   I remember pointing out once that it was interesting that the only area in which logical proof actually works were for the very simplest of entirely abstract entities that, perhaps, only exist in peoples' imaginations, numbers and other such mathematical objects.  And it doesn't even extend to a the ability to prove that those mathematical object are real.  The same guy, Robert Kuhn, who conducted the interview with Penrose has a number of them up expressing a wide range of opinions about the reality of mathematical objects.   I believe that Penrose pointed out somewhere in the interview that obvious thing about science that is always ignored, that science doesn't prove things, math does.  If he didn't, I'm sure he'd agree with a statement to that effect.  Mathematical objects are abstract, imaginary entities and aspects dealing with such things can generate proofs, material objects are not abstract and merely imaginary and can't produce proof of that kind.   I'll consider "proving" the existence of God when they've come up with a way to prove anything about the physical world in the same way they can things about mathematical objects*.

I will say that when given a choice between the opinions of stupid pop atheist blog rats and those of some of the most eminent scientists, philosophers and thinkers in the English language today as to what constitutes "unmitigated bullshit" and real issues, I'm not stupid enough to not see which side is worth paying attention to, which has ideas worth thinking about.  Pop atheism is a means of avoiding thinking, the product of watching too much TV,  too many movies, listening to pop crap and getting a meaningless college degree so you can feel conceited and superior when you are about as informed as any bar drunk with a mouth a lot bigger than their knowledge base.   Atheism made a good fad for a while but as it was an appeal of the bigoted and ignorant and conceited to others like them, it was always doomed to have a limited appeal, turning off more normal people than it would attract.  Not all atheists are assholes, but the ones that make a stink all are.

And again, moron, if you had a clue you would know that Simels and me are two separate people. But that would harm your self-elusion, wouldn't it? 

In light of your previou blather,  prove you aren't one of his sockpuppets.

Did you and [another male blogger] have a nice weekend snuggling in that cabin in the woods trying to find God together? You really need to try harder with your religious bullshit. Take care, Sparky!

This reminds me of  one of my earliest online experiences when a group of blog atheists were sharking about Jesus being gay, going on in their jr. high way, yucking it up.  It must have been about the time I realized what a huge impediment on the real left the atheist play-left has been ever since people mistook the atheist agenda for some kind of bold, lefty thing and followed such idiots into what is continuing into the fourth century of such folly when atheist materialism is the most effective way to kill off anything that a real left would exist to do.

I asked the assembled atheist idiots what would be wrong with Jesus being gay.  Of course, since gay rights were a big issue in lefty land at the time, or at least a pretense in their belief in the equality of gay people was de rigueur, they'd exposed themselves as homophobes by their snark.  So, "Zod" you say that as two men spending time in a "cabin in the woods" had something wrong with it.  Could be the veneer over your real attitude against gay men needs a bit of gluing down, there, boy.

I don't, for the record, live in the woods.  I live at the edge of a field.

The angry, stupid invective that atheists practice is a cover for their panic when they find their narrow little minds can't support the reality of their ideology.  They certainly get angry whenever anyone points out problems with things like doing "science" around the origin of life and the huge improbability of their many scenarios of that - probably more than all of the current fabulistic, religious accounts believed in by contemporary naive fundamentalist belief.   Abiogenesis like materialist cosmology have invented one after another after another of unevidenced scenarios that, when looked at skeptically and with rigor, seem to be the stuff that delusion is made of.  Ideological delusion, not really different from what people like Ken Ham harness to get suckers to fund Noah's Ark museums and which get creeps like Alabama's Roy Moore elected in places like Alabama.   Atheists are just fundamentalist yahoos with degrees that permit them to be snobs.  The snobbery is really the only difference.  Most of them are, really, as stupid as "General Zod".

You know, "Zod," only Simps has ever called me "Sparky".  And he never, ever, addresses what I really said.  Just two of the many things things you have in common.  It's my experience that most atheists, when challenged, chicken out of defending what they claim and turn to invective. Anyone who has ever kept chickens know that the hens are a lot less silly and less stupid than roosters who strut around and crow and fight and attack.  Thus the title.  Is there anything sillier than an old, aging atheist who struts the stuff they figure is so impressive when it is only silly.

*  I don't think any mathematician has been stupid enough to think that there will ever be a "theory of everything" in mathematics in the way that so many physicists and cosmologists pretend they'll have someday, soon according to some like Sean Carroll.   I am trying to remember that ridiculous claim about a "TOE" being at hand that wasn't made by an ideological atheist and can't remember any religious physicist coming up with such absurd claims.   As I have pointed out,  Carroll, when challenged, had to admit that physics doesn't have a "theory of everything" of even one object in the universe, not one single atom or electron - and it took me more than two weeks to get the ass to admit that - so his claim that a "TOE" will ever come about is entirely absurd.  If they can't do that for even one electron, the entity that generated Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle, the claim that they'll be able to do that for the entire universe is ideological superstition of the highest order.