Ask Me Anything

154 posts / 0 new
Last post
ʝօɦn 6lX ɮʀeeʐy's picture
Thanks; I think I'll humbly

Thanks; I think I'll humbly take my leave. I'm satisfied knowing that the accusation of creating sock puppet accounts (Avant Brown and others) was not substantiated.

I do prefer being banned for something I did do. So yes, like two or three years ago I made a singular comment bragging about trolling Sheldon or someone else. The mods implied that my behavior didn't meet their definition of trolling, but that if I was going to label myself as such they would ban me.

As to posting in the Atheist Hub, according to atheists, I'm an atheist in regards to every other deity except one. There's no DNA test for atheism; no inborn identifier of our beliefs. It's a label we all give ourselves and are at liberty to switch at any moment for any reason. If you think temporarily labeling myself atheist is synonymous with Rachel Dolazal labeling herself African American, then your understanding of atheism is questionable.

So I'll gladly accept being banned for bragging about trolling several years ago. I have sinned terribly.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Too bad; I was only getting

Too bad; I was only getting started. I guess I should have went for the punchline sooner. For that I apologize, I've been kind of busy the last couple days; trying to make some homemade fireworks.

ʝօɦn 6lX ɮʀeeʐy's picture
No worries, that's very

No worries, that's very relatable. Whenever I'm busy, I too beat around the bush instead of getting to the point.

Nyarlathotep's picture
User was locked for refusing

/e this post has been edited to add several items, more than once.

And yes, I haven't even got to the socket-puppets. Three new accounts were made and used in trolling the forums (and cross posting with you) in the period of about 3 days; from an IP address you were using during that time period:

  • Can I establish beyond a reasonable doubt it was you? No.
  • Do I need to? No, you were caught breaking the rules several times (which you continue to refuse to repudiate) before that.
  • Would I have locked a new user if that happened to them? Yes, in fact I've done it many times.
  • Do I dislike you personally? Yes.
  • Did my dislike affect your being banned? Yes, it caused it to be greatly delayed; as I was reluctant to ban someone I don't like. I waited until a big red target got painted on your back (rightfully or wrongfully). Any new user that pulled your shenanigans would have been removed before any of the sock-puppeting happened, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

If you feel you've been treated unfairly send an email describing your situation to the site admin.

User was locked for refusing to agree to the site's rules.

Sheldon's picture
I don't say this often enough

Nyarlathotep, I don't say this often enough, but thank you, you and Cyber do a great job.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
*loud and prolonged applause

*loud and prolonged applause from the bleachers*

I echo Sheldon, even when I am falling foul of the mods, you guys are admirable in your fair treatment.

Cognostic's picture
@Nyarlathotep: My HERO!!!

@Nyarlathotep: My HERO!!! YEAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Breezy

Re: Breezy

Yep, some things never change.

Randomhero1982's picture
You can only yell at the

You can only yell at the monkey for so long for chucking its shit against the walls....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Random

@ Random

In my experience the chimp you are referring to has never wasted his terribly odiferous faeces by hurling them at walls. His aim has always been razor sharp and very much at head height, however low the recipient.

Cognostic's picture
@Randomhero1982: Monkey poo

@Randomhero1982: Monkey poo comments are not appreciated. Only an ethnocentric hardhearted chicken eater could make such a comment about the artistic works of the monkey folk.

Sheldon's picture
So Breezy's left the building

So Breezy's left the building then, and once again failed to offer a shred of objective evidence for any deity. Quelle surprise.

Cognostic's picture
@Sheldon: Mr. Sheldon is

@Sheldon: Mr. Sheldon is always appreciated for getting things started off on the right note. It makes all the wriggling, squirming, hemming and hawing self evident. I am waiting for the day one of these super-naturalists admit that they just don't have any good evidence but choose to believe anyway and then honestly look at some of the beliefs they have..

Sheldon's picture


As you say making an unequivocal demand for a demonstration of some objective evidence usually meets with a range of evasive tactics from religious apologists, suggesting they know fully well they have none. What's more many of them admit it, albeit tacitly, as Breezy did with his "there is a problem with the question" nonsense, by trying to pretend objective evidence is not the best benchmark for validating claims and ideas. And yes it is nonsense of course, as not one of them would believe anything outside of a religious context without sufficient objective evidence, Hell creationists blithely deny scientific facts like evolution, that has a weight of objective evidence that puts it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Breezy is possibly one of the most dishonest posters I've ever encountered, though people like SFT, Royism and AJ777 have run him pretty close on occasion. For me creationists are in a separate category in the sense they are not just prepared to believe something that can demonstrate no objective evidence for, they are also prepared to deny objective scientific fact, you will never reach anyone that deluded. Breezy is so arrogant he actually believes he understands evolutionary biology better than the entire scientific world has over the last 160 years, including experts in that field of study who have dedicated their entire lives to studying nothing else,even better than Darwin himself, by spotting flaws they have all missed.
I wonder if his ego will be bigger or smaller when he actually graduates? I wonder if his ego can get any bigger to be honest. The real hilarity is when he denigrates others like myself as not having his "scientific expertise," as if he's failed to notice the irony in the contradiction of that appeal to authority fallacy, real experts are part of a global scientific consensus spanning 160 years of study based on a weight of objective evidence that is beyond any reasonable doubt. Breezy has his own confidence that he is a genius who's bested them all, yet has had not one of his claims peer reviewed or published.

Sometime you just have to see the funny side.

Sheldon's picture
Breezy "the only past

Breezy "the only past behavior I can atone for is my tendancy to ignore questions that are irrelevant to a given topic. For example, being asked if I'm a YEC when the topic is Consciousness."

I've actually just now noticed this shocking lie, though given his propensity for mendacity perhaps not all that shocking.

The subject firstly was his denial of the scientific fact of species evolution, and if memory serves his use of what was basically an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy that evolution couldn't explain or evidence human consciousness.

Lie number one then.

His second lie is his risible claim he had a propensity to ignore questions because they were irrelevant to the topic. Unless you think it was irrelevant to cite biblical texts specifically condoning slavery in a thread he started claiming the bible condemned slavery, and citing a text that made no mention of slavery, or even a tangential reference to any objective reader, which of course he was not.

Then there was his claim his denials of evolution had nothing to do with his religious beliefs. To which he was asked many scientific facts apart from evolution he denied that in no way contradicted any part of his religious beliefs, unsurprisingly he used the same lie then, pretending it had no relevance. He was also asked if he was a YEC as this would necessarily involve denial of other scientific facts like the age of universe and earth, and living things etc etc, denials of carbon dating results and so on, and again he was characteristically reticent and dishonest. As again he recognised the question, far from being irrelevant, showed his bias in favour of the religious idiocy of creationism was his motive for questioning the scientific fact of evolution, and he had of course lied.

Basically John Breezy was and is a shockingly dishonest poster, and now wanted to come back, and lie one last time. However enough people here called him on this enough times to make this latest lie entirely moot. He really is the mother and father of all liars, as most people here already know of course.

dogalmighty's picture
Why do you consistently fail

Why do you consistently fail at reason?

rat spit's picture
I hear God and Satan in my

I hear God and Satan in my head, therefore they exist.

You hear your self in your head, therefore you exist.

I’m less of a theist and more of, say, a prophet.

I don’t “believe” God exists, like a theist might. Indeed, I know God exists - as surely as any non-prophet knows they exist simply because “Cognito Ergo Sum”.

Cognitive disorders of auditory “hallucinations” affect 1% of the world’s population. In fact studies have shown that more than 8% of any given population is willing to admit they hear voices.

It is that 1% who can’t cope with and get a psychiatric diagnosis. The other seven percent live normal, productive lives.

For you non-voice hearing people: who are you to judge 70 million human beings when they claim they have direct communication to a higher being?

You have no right. Just as I have no right to disregard YOUR inner voice (ie. “you”).

Exceptions should be made for the percentage of those voice hearers who claim they hear the government (or non superhuman entities).

But the fact remains that a very large percentage of the world has very intimate knowledge of a set of higher beings or a singular higher being.

Biology and psychiatry are at a loss to explain the “realism” of hallucinations. This isn’t some acid trip where you vaguely might be hearing your name echoed in the distance. This is, in fact, a very intimate and often unnerving coexistence with a Being or set of Beings who are superior to the voice-hearer in every regard.

Now. I’m one of those. And you won’t hear me preaching any religion. When I evoke the name of “Jesus” to my demons, they hissss and tell me how much they hate his name. And then they go back to their lies and schemes.

Why are these Beings particularly nefarious? As I said; it is an unnerving coexistence between Beings who are extremely evolved; who exist on a higher plane of being than our selves; who don’t want to simply annihilate their hosts - but are more than happy to lead them into destructive habits and behaviours.

As for Breezy. Sounds like a whack job. And I will say the same of any theist who thinks they have the tools to convince the world that God exists via proof and evidence.

At least I am expressing a personal experiential anecdote of types. And for anyone who doubts the authenticity of my experiences; I will simply call their own “being” into doubt. It’s only fair.

Nyarlathotep's picture
rat spit - For you non-voice

rat spit - For you non-voice hearing people: who are you to judge 70 million human beings when they claim they have direct communication to a higher being?

My response to that is:
What is the difference between:

  • A world where x% of people talk to a deity (or whatever) in their head, but the deity never gives them any new information that can be verified.
  • A world where x% of people talk to an imaginary deity in their head, and of course get no new information that can be verified.

The punchline of course is there is no difference. So I don't care if you talk to voices, and I don't care what the source of those voices are; until you start producing this new verifiable information. If/when you can produce it, then I'll be extremely interested.

In other words; I don't care about how it feels to you or what you think is happening; in short I don't care about your methods or explanations. I care about results. When you start producing results, then I will care about your methods.

rat spit's picture
Okay. What I’m reading is

Okay. What I’m reading is that you don’t care about me personally.

Well, what about the nth prime formula? Where do you think I got that?

And I personally shared that with you, because you seem maths savvy and, quite honestly, I can’t manipulate Euler’s formula. All the same, I came out with a hypothetical million dollar idea - generated by inspiration from the Satan Devil and practically gave it to you.

Let’s not fight. Okay? Let’s solve this nth prime.

Okay. A new approach.

e^(theta) is the hypotenuse - where (theta)= the summation series of prime “x” divided by prime x.

The opposite side of the triangle is the summation series of prime x.

The adjacent side of the triangle is prime x.

Now, this makes for some pretty steep looking right triangles as x approaches even 12, but maybe some adjustments to prime x will be found in the calculations.

So we have:

e^(theta)*2 = (prime x)^2 + (the summation of prime x)^2

Ie. the Pythagorean theorem. Inspired by:

e^(theta)i = cos theta + i sin theta;

For right triangles

Now, if this works out, then Satan exists and he has given me a formula for the nth prime. A formula which could overhaul the entire division of mathematical cryptography. It could destroy the security of all transactions on the internet.

Nyarlathotep's picture
rat spit - ...the summation

rat spit - ...the summation series of prime “x”...

What do you mean by that exactly? For example, if we were discussing the 4th prime (x = 4); would the sum mentioned in the quote be the sum of the first 4 primes? (2 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 17)?

I hope not, because that would be a very bad thing to be in a formula for the nth prime.

rat spit's picture
No. No. Of course, that would

No. No. Of course, that would be a blunder. I mean the arithmetic series summation for any given prime.

Eg. Prime x = 5, then series summation equals (1+2+3+4+5) = 15 and therefore (theta) equals 15/5 = 3

e^3*2 = [(some factor)*5]^2+ 15^2

Nyarlathotep's picture
rat spit: e^(theta)*2 =

rat spit: e^(theta)*2 = (prime x)^2 + (the summation of prime x)^2

I could clean that up considerably for you (by removing the summations and combining terms), but there is no point because I can already see some fatal problems:

  1. The left hand side is an irrational number, while the right hand side is a rational number. Can an irrational number equal a rational number? Of course not. Your equation is false.
  2. Presumably we start already knowing the value of x (if we want to know the 4th prime, we know x = 4). That leaves us with nothing to solve for. So there would be no way to extract the answer, even if the equation was true.
David Killens's picture
@rat spit

@rat spit

"I hear God and Satan in my head, therefore they exist."

No, you are carrying an internal conversation you attribute to third parties. For almost all parties, there is a mental health problem.

So far it appears such a condition is not harming you rat spit, but I sincerely suggest you seek out the proper medical professionals and treatment.

rat spit's picture
As always, I appreciate the

As always, I appreciate the genuine concern. I’m way ahead of you. I’ve been receiving treatment since the age of 21. It wasn’t until the age of 28 that I discovered a coping mechanism which essentially turned the voices off. They’re not in your head. They’re in your heart. In fact, if I’d followed through on my university education, I’d be developing pharmaceuticals which target a specific area of the heart.

I have been in remission for ten years and I’ve built a normal life with a wonderful person and a bright and enjoyable future. 80 % of the time, I’m voice free. But for that other 20 % I do have to bare the incessant lies and persuasions of a malicious entity; driven to lead me down dark paths of addiction.

I would like to see how science finally comes up with the explanation that this is a medical disorder. How the “ego” of the sufferer somehow develops into a malicious superhuman entity that controls a variety of hallucinations for the purpose of torturing its host.

I’ll consider all the genetic and neurological findings out there. But, as I say, the “realism” of the “hallucination” is a big obstacle for any scientific explanation of the phenomenon.

Sheldon's picture
ratspit " as I say, the

ratspit " as I say, the “realism” of the “hallucination”

You made this point before, and again the definition of hallucination holds the answer, as it a strong perception of something that doesn't actually exist, thus by definition all hallucinations seem real. If it didn't seem very real then it wouldn't be an hallucination, as again that is precisely what defines an hallucination.

rat spit's picture
DMT trips, Ayahuasca trips,

DMT trips, Ayahuasca trips, Ibogaine trips - provide hallucinogenic compounds that stimulate very “real” hallucinations.

With schizophrenics or that 8 % of the population who admit to hearing voices - such chemical compounds are not present - and thus the same mechanism does not account for the hallucinations.

That would be my only disagreement with your response.

David Killens's picture
@rat spit

@rat spit

"But, as I say, the “realism” of the “hallucination” is a big obstacle for any scientific explanation of the phenomenon."

This phenomena is very real to you, I will definitely concede. But it is real and overpowering only to you. To a properly trained medical professional, this medical problem is not overpowering. it can be treated.

I have diabetes and must stay on top of it 24/7. I cannot be complacent at any day or time. I must take my medication as required without any exceptions. I suggest you follow the same path.

Rat spit, I understand and "feel" that you are a nice human being on the other side of my monitor screen. I sincerely wish you a happy and full life. Please take care of yourself.

Cognostic's picture
@Rocket Scientist: Not an

@Rocket Scientist: Not an actual major at any university that could be confused with Aerospace Engineering but colloquially used to mean "A very smart person."

The assertion was "A very smart person swears up and down that he can not change the tire on his car."

Why do I think of the late , great, Stephen Hawking, crawling out of his wheelchair onto the pavement. Squiggling to the trunk of the car. Blindly reaching into the trunk. Pulling out the jack. (He would have to have a car with the tire attached to the bottom with a release chain.) Inserting the crowbar into a slot and unwinding the tire with his teeth. Setting the jack and then bobbing his head up and down on the crowbar to elevate the car. Removing the lug nuts with his teeth because fitting the damn end of the crowbar over the lug nuts appeared an impossible task. Setting the tire onto the lug nut bolts. Getting them damn lug nuts onto the bolts and tightening them down once again. All of this while laying on the shoulder of the road facing oncoming traffic.

I think Stephen Hawking would swear that he could not change the tire on his car; however, given enough time and determination..... he probably could.

rat spit's picture


Are you sure you’re on the right thread there, monkey man?

David Killens's picture
That is not a matter of

That is not a matter of intelligence but just experience.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.