A creationist troll on Flickr
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-09-2015, 03:06 AM
A creationist troll on Flickr
I’ve been a member of an Atheist group on Flickr for some years. For the most part I see it as a group that points the finger at the hypocrisy, absurdities and sometimes the downright intolerance and other evils of religion. I suppose it makes some sort of statement that rationality and scepticism go hand in hand with the thought that as humans we don’t need organised religion to tell us how to live good lives – we’re better than that.

There are all sorts of members of the group including some theists who have occasionally contributed to discussions and it’s all been reasonably civilised. Then towards the end of 2014 a troll appeared – a Creationist troll from the UK using the name "Truth in science".

His modus operandi has been to pepper the group photostream with garishly coloured images which include statements like, “Atheist myths debunked”, “The truth about fossils”, “Atheism revealed as false”, “The truth about dinosaurs”, etc. Typically these images would be accompanied by long rambling diatribes against the “false religion” of atheism and how through natural laws, scientific principles and logic he could disprove everything from evolution to abiogenesis to the Big Bang Theory and prove the existence of god, The Flood, the supernatural origin of the universe, the existence of dinosaurs in historical times and the evils of atheism.

You’ll see the same rant crop up time and time again – he probably has a library of his arguments which he copies and pastes into the comments or descriptions. In fact you’ll find that many of his images are repeats or variations on something that he’s posted before. He posts them in lots of groups on Flickr which are about atheism, humanism or secularism as well as various Christian religious groups.

Clearly he’s a fruitcake.

In fact at first I wondered if it might be someone posing as a Creationist as some sort of parody as it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of fundamentalism or other extreme views and their genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.

Then as I looked at how he engaged those that challenged his crackpot ideas and looked at his bizarre images that I found that something else was going on.

Many of his images have huge numbers of tags and many of those tags appear unrelated to the images until you realise that many of them are the names of prominent scientists, philosophers, journalists, celebrities who are publically sceptical of religion or are self-professed atheists. Why does he do that I wondered? Then I found out.

By clicking on a tag, Flickr helpfully provides you with a gallery of other images that also have that tag. I clicked on the tag labelled “professor alice roberts” in one of our fruitcake’s images. Now for those who don’t know Professor Roberts, she is a British anatomist, osteoarchaeologist, physical anthropologist, palaeopathologist, and is currently Professor of Public Engagement in Science at the University of Birmingham in the UK. She is also young, attractive, telegenic and frequently appears on science/natural history TV programming in the UK. She is also an atheist and a humanist and a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association. So by clicking on the tag I was faced with images of Alice Roberts and because she has quite a high public profile there were lots of them.

I clicked on a few of those images at random to find that our fruitcake friend had visited those images and effectively “graffitied” them with copies of his own images or anti-science, anti-atheist rants.

Well that’s just………creepy.

I suspect that many of the owners of the images he has visited have deleted his comments, but a few hadn’t and it was interesting to read instances where his absurd views had been challenged. His responses are broadly the same for all those who challenge his absurd views. As mentioned earlier he claims that Natural Laws, Logic and Scientific Principles either prove he’s right or you are wrong, but when you read his claims and his arguments (and it IS hard work) you see that there are common threads running through all of his rants which make him a difficult individual to have any reasoned, civilised discussion. These come in a number of forms:

Logical fallacies – he uses these ALL the time. Common fallacies he will use include:
• An argument from ignorance – basing things on a premise that has only been proved to his satisfaction (his God MUST exist argument)
• An argument from personal incredulity – you provide him with evidence that refutes his claims, but he rejects this because he cannot imagine that it is true (abundant evidence of transitional fossils is described as “rubbish”)
• Straw man – distorting his opponent’s position, giving the impression of refuting the opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent in the first place.
• Ad hominem attacks – when he’s desperate he’ll evade the actual topic by resorting to attacking his opponent (“You will never have the satisfaction of knowing you are right, you will only know if you are wrong. And, if you are wrong, you are the loser - big time. So you choose to waste and gamble your valuable time on a no-hope, no-win venture.”)
• Shifting the burden of proof – he can’t provide evidence to support his claim, but demands that you should provide him with proof that he’s wrong (which you do but he then says he disbelieves you –see personal incredulity)
• False authority - using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell his ideas (typically this might mean some other Creationist)
• Cherry picking - pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. (Quote mining is a good example of this – he’ll quote mine everyone from Fred Hoyle to Lord Kelvin to support his claims)
• Red herrings – he’ll introduce these at any point to misdirect his opponent when the opponent is clearly winning the argument.

Of course when accused of using those logical fallacies his response is to make further ad hominem attacks – “Oh! Don't be so precious and pedantic. Where is your point by point logical refutation of my first, cause argument? If it is a logical fallacy it should be a simple matter for you to construct a logical or scientific argument to demolish it. So where is it? What is your problem? The logical fallacy argument is no argument at all. It is just the refuge of those who lack any other argument, and that is why atheists are so fond of using it. Any fool can dismiss anything by claiming it is a logical fallacy. How about this then? All atheist arguments I have ever heard are logical fallacies - so atheism is DEBUNKED! End of argument - you lose - OK?”

Scientific Principles - His knowledge of science is sketchy and deeply flawed but he constantly insists that his position is supported by scientific principles. Quite what those are is a matter of some confusion. He frequently refers to “Laws” which are either dubious in themselves or his understanding of them is flawed – “Law of Biogenesis”, “Law of Chance”, “Law of Cause and Effect” are frequently referred to, although his all-time favourite has to be the Second Law of Thermodynamics which he’ll use at the drop of a hat to argue against everything from the Big Bang, to the origins of life and evolution.

He dismisses peer-reviewed evidence as "rigged" and of course selectively quotes examples of instances where the science has been proven wrong (by other scientists) or where fraud as taken place - such as Piltdown Man.

His best "evidence" appears to be anecdotal.......which of course is a bit pathetic......or so-called evidence provided by that rarest of creatures, a Creationist scientist (an oxymoron if ever there was).

Needless to say……..he doesn’t really know his stuff but aggressively pontificates to opponents that he does. None-the-less make no mistake…………he does not follow any scientific principles that I’m aware of. Indeed he continually dismisses evidence that doesn’t suit him, while quoting “evidence” that is palpably false or misleading.

He constantly refers to atheism as a religion and no matter how often this is refuted he continues to make this accusation.

So what is his agenda? This nugget was quite enlightening during an exchange between him and another Flickr member. “My agenda is summed up in one word: TRUTH. I don't belong to any organisation, I am completely independent. I seek to oppose and expose the falsehood, deceit, hype and relentless propaganda that atheism is the rational, scientific viewpoint, when it is nothing of the sort. Atheism is demonstrably irrational, illogical and anti-science. It is simply a revival of pagan naturalism, which was soundly debunked with the onset of modern science. Even worse, atheists have managed to hi-jack most of the scientific establishment to suit their ideological beliefs, and now merrily masquerade as the champions of science, logic and reason. It is an appalling distortion of the facts. And I will continue to reveal the real truth about the atheist cult, until it joins the pagan, naturalist religion that spawned it, in the dustbin of history”.

He may claim to be independent but his position seems to be uncannily similar to that espoused by the likes of Ken Ham and the Institute of Creation research as well as Answers in Genesis and the Creation Ministries International. He also shares his Flickr name with a UK based creationist organization (Truth In Science) which promotes the Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" campaign, although he implies he is not a proponent of Intelligent Design. He uses aggressive trolling as a device to garner support for his views (various fundamentalist Christians on Flickr “fave” his images or provide supportive comments in his photostream). Part of that that cognitive dissonance is the strange conspiracy theory that atheists have hijacked science. How that has been achieved is never explained. Neither is the fact that a huge number of scientists are actually theists of some description.

The claims and bizarre statements contained in his images are easily refuted, but it when comes to the point where he can't wriggle and dodge and evade any more, he will typically perform a reversal of the burden of proof - usually demanding that you provide proof that God doesn't exist or something similar - and then censors any further replies.

He really is a nasty little shit and should b e exposed for what he is.

I must confess I really didn't understand how nasty some of these creationists are. How much they are are prepared to do to defend the indefensible. But then they're just another form of religious fundamentalism. You can laugh at them but when you realise how fanatical they really are then it becomes rather horrible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Silly Deity's post
04-09-2015, 03:15 AM
RE: A creationist troll on Flickr
Flickr, huh?

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 03:32 AM
RE: A creationist troll on Flickr
Don't do/use flickr, though I've heard the handle before... Maybe on something with Matt Dillahunty? Consider

One of the loose screws who phoned into the show sometime, I think?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: A creationist troll on Flickr
That's a helluva introductory post. Well-phrased though, if a bit verbose.

Maybe our "GodExists" spammer is the same guy?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: A creationist troll on Flickr
1- Not an introductory post.
2- I do not understand the point.
3- The vacuum ate my underwear. Angry

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 03:19 PM
RE: A creationist troll on Flickr
(04-09-2015 03:06 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  I’ve been a member of an Atheist group on Flickr for some years. For the most part I see it as a group that points the finger at the hypocrisy, absurdities and sometimes the downright intolerance and other evils of religion. I suppose it makes some sort of statement that rationality and scepticism go hand in hand with the thought that as humans we don’t need organised religion to tell us how to live good lives – we’re better than that.

There are all sorts of members of the group including some theists who have occasionally contributed to discussions and it’s all been reasonably civilised. Then towards the end of 2014 a troll appeared – a Creationist troll from the UK using the name "Truth in science".

His modus operandi has been to pepper the group photostream with garishly coloured images which include statements like, “Atheist myths debunked”, “The truth about fossils”, “Atheism revealed as false”, “The truth about dinosaurs”, etc. Typically these images would be accompanied by long rambling diatribes against the “false religion” of atheism and how through natural laws, scientific principles and logic he could disprove everything from evolution to abiogenesis to the Big Bang Theory and prove the existence of god, The Flood, the supernatural origin of the universe, the existence of dinosaurs in historical times and the evils of atheism.

You’ll see the same rant crop up time and time again – he probably has a library of his arguments which he copies and pastes into the comments or descriptions. In fact you’ll find that many of his images are repeats or variations on something that he’s posted before. He posts them in lots of groups on Flickr which are about atheism, humanism or secularism as well as various Christian religious groups.

Clearly he’s a fruitcake.

In fact at first I wondered if it might be someone posing as a Creationist as some sort of parody as it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of fundamentalism or other extreme views and their genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.

Then as I looked at how he engaged those that challenged his crackpot ideas and looked at his bizarre images that I found that something else was going on.

Many of his images have huge numbers of tags and many of those tags appear unrelated to the images until you realise that many of them are the names of prominent scientists, philosophers, journalists, celebrities who are publically sceptical of religion or are self-professed atheists. Why does he do that I wondered? Then I found out.

By clicking on a tag, Flickr helpfully provides you with a gallery of other images that also have that tag. I clicked on the tag labelled “professor alice roberts” in one of our fruitcake’s images. Now for those who don’t know Professor Roberts, she is a British anatomist, osteoarchaeologist, physical anthropologist, palaeopathologist, and is currently Professor of Public Engagement in Science at the University of Birmingham in the UK. She is also young, attractive, telegenic and frequently appears on science/natural history TV programming in the UK. She is also an atheist and a humanist and a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association. So by clicking on the tag I was faced with images of Alice Roberts and because she has quite a high public profile there were lots of them.

I clicked on a few of those images at random to find that our fruitcake friend had visited those images and effectively “graffitied” them with copies of his own images or anti-science, anti-atheist rants.

Well that’s just………creepy.

I suspect that many of the owners of the images he has visited have deleted his comments, but a few hadn’t and it was interesting to read instances where his absurd views had been challenged. His responses are broadly the same for all those who challenge his absurd views. As mentioned earlier he claims that Natural Laws, Logic and Scientific Principles either prove he’s right or you are wrong, but when you read his claims and his arguments (and it IS hard work) you see that there are common threads running through all of his rants which make him a difficult individual to have any reasoned, civilised discussion. These come in a number of forms:

Logical fallacies – he uses these ALL the time. Common fallacies he will use include:
• An argument from ignorance – basing things on a premise that has only been proved to his satisfaction (his God MUST exist argument)
• An argument from personal incredulity – you provide him with evidence that refutes his claims, but he rejects this because he cannot imagine that it is true (abundant evidence of transitional fossils is described as “rubbish”)
• Straw man – distorting his opponent’s position, giving the impression of refuting the opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent in the first place.
• Ad hominem attacks – when he’s desperate he’ll evade the actual topic by resorting to attacking his opponent (“You will never have the satisfaction of knowing you are right, you will only know if you are wrong. And, if you are wrong, you are the loser - big time. So you choose to waste and gamble your valuable time on a no-hope, no-win venture.”)
• Shifting the burden of proof – he can’t provide evidence to support his claim, but demands that you should provide him with proof that he’s wrong (which you do but he then says he disbelieves you –see personal incredulity)
• False authority - using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell his ideas (typically this might mean some other Creationist)
• Cherry picking - pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. (Quote mining is a good example of this – he’ll quote mine everyone from Fred Hoyle to Lord Kelvin to support his claims)
• Red herrings – he’ll introduce these at any point to misdirect his opponent when the opponent is clearly winning the argument.

Of course when accused of using those logical fallacies his response is to make further ad hominem attacks – “Oh! Don't be so precious and pedantic. Where is your point by point logical refutation of my first, cause argument? If it is a logical fallacy it should be a simple matter for you to construct a logical or scientific argument to demolish it. So where is it? What is your problem? The logical fallacy argument is no argument at all. It is just the refuge of those who lack any other argument, and that is why atheists are so fond of using it. Any fool can dismiss anything by claiming it is a logical fallacy. How about this then? All atheist arguments I have ever heard are logical fallacies - so atheism is DEBUNKED! End of argument - you lose - OK?”

Scientific Principles - His knowledge of science is sketchy and deeply flawed but he constantly insists that his position is supported by scientific principles. Quite what those are is a matter of some confusion. He frequently refers to “Laws” which are either dubious in themselves or his understanding of them is flawed – “Law of Biogenesis”, “Law of Chance”, “Law of Cause and Effect” are frequently referred to, although his all-time favourite has to be the Second Law of Thermodynamics which he’ll use at the drop of a hat to argue against everything from the Big Bang, to the origins of life and evolution.

He dismisses peer-reviewed evidence as "rigged" and of course selectively quotes examples of instances where the science has been proven wrong (by other scientists) or where fraud as taken place - such as Piltdown Man.

His best "evidence" appears to be anecdotal.......which of course is a bit pathetic......or so-called evidence provided by that rarest of creatures, a Creationist scientist (an oxymoron if ever there was).

Needless to say……..he doesn’t really know his stuff but aggressively pontificates to opponents that he does. None-the-less make no mistake…………he does not follow any scientific principles that I’m aware of. Indeed he continually dismisses evidence that doesn’t suit him, while quoting “evidence” that is palpably false or misleading.

He constantly refers to atheism as a religion and no matter how often this is refuted he continues to make this accusation.

So what is his agenda? This nugget was quite enlightening during an exchange between him and another Flickr member. “My agenda is summed up in one word: TRUTH. I don't belong to any organisation, I am completely independent. I seek to oppose and expose the falsehood, deceit, hype and relentless propaganda that atheism is the rational, scientific viewpoint, when it is nothing of the sort. Atheism is demonstrably irrational, illogical and anti-science. It is simply a revival of pagan naturalism, which was soundly debunked with the onset of modern science. Even worse, atheists have managed to hi-jack most of the scientific establishment to suit their ideological beliefs, and now merrily masquerade as the champions of science, logic and reason. It is an appalling distortion of the facts. And I will continue to reveal the real truth about the atheist cult, until it joins the pagan, naturalist religion that spawned it, in the dustbin of history”.

He may claim to be independent but his position seems to be uncannily similar to that espoused by the likes of Ken Ham and the Institute of Creation research as well as Answers in Genesis and the Creation Ministries International. He also shares his Flickr name with a UK based creationist organization (Truth In Science) which promotes the Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" campaign, although he implies he is not a proponent of Intelligent Design. He uses aggressive trolling as a device to garner support for his views (various fundamentalist Christians on Flickr “fave” his images or provide supportive comments in his photostream). Part of that that cognitive dissonance is the strange conspiracy theory that atheists have hijacked science. How that has been achieved is never explained. Neither is the fact that a huge number of scientists are actually theists of some description.

The claims and bizarre statements contained in his images are easily refuted, but it when comes to the point where he can't wriggle and dodge and evade any more, he will typically perform a reversal of the burden of proof - usually demanding that you provide proof that God doesn't exist or something similar - and then censors any further replies.

He really is a nasty little shit and should b e exposed for what he is.

I must confess I really didn't understand how nasty some of these creationists are. How much they are are prepared to do to defend the indefensible. But then they're just another form of religious fundamentalism. You can laugh at them but when you realise how fanatical they really are then it becomes rather horrible.

ahm. didnt know there is a flickr atheist group. Let me check......
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 07:59 PM
RE: A creationist troll on Flickr
(04-09-2015 03:06 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  I’ve been a member of an Atheist group on Flickr for some years. For the most part I see it as a group that points the finger at the hypocrisy, absurdities and sometimes the downright intolerance and other evils of religion. I suppose it makes some sort of statement that rationality and scepticism go hand in hand with the thought that as humans we don’t need organised religion to tell us how to live good lives – we’re better than that.

There are all sorts of members of the group including some theists who have occasionally contributed to discussions and it’s all been reasonably civilised. Then towards the end of 2014 a troll appeared – a Creationist troll from the UK using the name "Truth in science".

His modus operandi has been to pepper the group photostream with garishly coloured images which include statements like, “Atheist myths debunked”, “The truth about fossils”, “Atheism revealed as false”, “The truth about dinosaurs”, etc. Typically these images would be accompanied by long rambling diatribes against the “false religion” of atheism and how through natural laws, scientific principles and logic he could disprove everything from evolution to abiogenesis to the Big Bang Theory and prove the existence of god, The Flood, the supernatural origin of the universe, the existence of dinosaurs in historical times and the evils of atheism.

You’ll see the same rant crop up time and time again – he probably has a library of his arguments which he copies and pastes into the comments or descriptions. In fact you’ll find that many of his images are repeats or variations on something that he’s posted before. He posts them in lots of groups on Flickr which are about atheism, humanism or secularism as well as various Christian religious groups.

Clearly he’s a fruitcake.

In fact at first I wondered if it might be someone posing as a Creationist as some sort of parody as it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of fundamentalism or other extreme views and their genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.

Then as I looked at how he engaged those that challenged his crackpot ideas and looked at his bizarre images that I found that something else was going on.

Many of his images have huge numbers of tags and many of those tags appear unrelated to the images until you realise that many of them are the names of prominent scientists, philosophers, journalists, celebrities who are publically sceptical of religion or are self-professed atheists. Why does he do that I wondered? Then I found out.

By clicking on a tag, Flickr helpfully provides you with a gallery of other images that also have that tag. I clicked on the tag labelled “professor alice roberts” in one of our fruitcake’s images. Now for those who don’t know Professor Roberts, she is a British anatomist, osteoarchaeologist, physical anthropologist, palaeopathologist, and is currently Professor of Public Engagement in Science at the University of Birmingham in the UK. She is also young, attractive, telegenic and frequently appears on science/natural history TV programming in the UK. She is also an atheist and a humanist and a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association. So by clicking on the tag I was faced with images of Alice Roberts and because she has quite a high public profile there were lots of them.

I clicked on a few of those images at random to find that our fruitcake friend had visited those images and effectively “graffitied” them with copies of his own images or anti-science, anti-atheist rants.

Well that’s just………creepy.

I suspect that many of the owners of the images he has visited have deleted his comments, but a few hadn’t and it was interesting to read instances where his absurd views had been challenged. His responses are broadly the same for all those who challenge his absurd views. As mentioned earlier he claims that Natural Laws, Logic and Scientific Principles either prove he’s right or you are wrong, but when you read his claims and his arguments (and it IS hard work) you see that there are common threads running through all of his rants which make him a difficult individual to have any reasoned, civilised discussion. These come in a number of forms:

Logical fallacies – he uses these ALL the time. Common fallacies he will use include:
• An argument from ignorance – basing things on a premise that has only been proved to his satisfaction (his God MUST exist argument)
• An argument from personal incredulity – you provide him with evidence that refutes his claims, but he rejects this because he cannot imagine that it is true (abundant evidence of transitional fossils is described as “rubbish”)
• Straw man – distorting his opponent’s position, giving the impression of refuting the opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent in the first place.
• Ad hominem attacks – when he’s desperate he’ll evade the actual topic by resorting to attacking his opponent (“You will never have the satisfaction of knowing you are right, you will only know if you are wrong. And, if you are wrong, you are the loser - big time. So you choose to waste and gamble your valuable time on a no-hope, no-win venture.”)
• Shifting the burden of proof – he can’t provide evidence to support his claim, but demands that you should provide him with proof that he’s wrong (which you do but he then says he disbelieves you –see personal incredulity)
• False authority - using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell his ideas (typically this might mean some other Creationist)
• Cherry picking - pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. (Quote mining is a good example of this – he’ll quote mine everyone from Fred Hoyle to Lord Kelvin to support his claims)
• Red herrings – he’ll introduce these at any point to misdirect his opponent when the opponent is clearly winning the argument.

Of course when accused of using those logical fallacies his response is to make further ad hominem attacks – “Oh! Don't be so precious and pedantic. Where is your point by point logical refutation of my first, cause argument? If it is a logical fallacy it should be a simple matter for you to construct a logical or scientific argument to demolish it. So where is it? What is your problem? The logical fallacy argument is no argument at all. It is just the refuge of those who lack any other argument, and that is why atheists are so fond of using it. Any fool can dismiss anything by claiming it is a logical fallacy. How about this then? All atheist arguments I have ever heard are logical fallacies - so atheism is DEBUNKED! End of argument - you lose - OK?”

Scientific Principles - His knowledge of science is sketchy and deeply flawed but he constantly insists that his position is supported by scientific principles. Quite what those are is a matter of some confusion. He frequently refers to “Laws” which are either dubious in themselves or his understanding of them is flawed – “Law of Biogenesis”, “Law of Chance”, “Law of Cause and Effect” are frequently referred to, although his all-time favourite has to be the Second Law of Thermodynamics which he’ll use at the drop of a hat to argue against everything from the Big Bang, to the origins of life and evolution.

He dismisses peer-reviewed evidence as "rigged" and of course selectively quotes examples of instances where the science has been proven wrong (by other scientists) or where fraud as taken place - such as Piltdown Man.

His best "evidence" appears to be anecdotal.......which of course is a bit pathetic......or so-called evidence provided by that rarest of creatures, a Creationist scientist (an oxymoron if ever there was).

Needless to say……..he doesn’t really know his stuff but aggressively pontificates to opponents that he does. None-the-less make no mistake…………he does not follow any scientific principles that I’m aware of. Indeed he continually dismisses evidence that doesn’t suit him, while quoting “evidence” that is palpably false or misleading.

He constantly refers to atheism as a religion and no matter how often this is refuted he continues to make this accusation.

So what is his agenda? This nugget was quite enlightening during an exchange between him and another Flickr member. “My agenda is summed up in one word: TRUTH. I don't belong to any organisation, I am completely independent. I seek to oppose and expose the falsehood, deceit, hype and relentless propaganda that atheism is the rational, scientific viewpoint, when it is nothing of the sort. Atheism is demonstrably irrational, illogical and anti-science. It is simply a revival of pagan naturalism, which was soundly debunked with the onset of modern science. Even worse, atheists have managed to hi-jack most of the scientific establishment to suit their ideological beliefs, and now merrily masquerade as the champions of science, logic and reason. It is an appalling distortion of the facts. And I will continue to reveal the real truth about the atheist cult, until it joins the pagan, naturalist religion that spawned it, in the dustbin of history”.

He may claim to be independent but his position seems to be uncannily similar to that espoused by the likes of Ken Ham and the Institute of Creation research as well as Answers in Genesis and the Creation Ministries International. He also shares his Flickr name with a UK based creationist organization (Truth In Science) which promotes the Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" campaign, although he implies he is not a proponent of Intelligent Design. He uses aggressive trolling as a device to garner support for his views (various fundamentalist Christians on Flickr “fave” his images or provide supportive comments in his photostream). Part of that that cognitive dissonance is the strange conspiracy theory that atheists have hijacked science. How that has been achieved is never explained. Neither is the fact that a huge number of scientists are actually theists of some description.

The claims and bizarre statements contained in his images are easily refuted, but it when comes to the point where he can't wriggle and dodge and evade any more, he will typically perform a reversal of the burden of proof - usually demanding that you provide proof that God doesn't exist or something similar - and then censors any further replies.

He really is a nasty little shit and should b e exposed for what he is.

I must confess I really didn't understand how nasty some of these creationists are. How much they are are prepared to do to defend the indefensible. But then they're just another form of religious fundamentalism. You can laugh at them but when you realise how fanatical they really are then it becomes rather horrible.

Well he's a pretty special religionist. If he can "prove" his stuff, then he needs no faith. Isn't that special. A "believer" who thinks he's above having faith. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: