Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Uncommon Descent: Contest Question 7: Foul anonymous Darwinist blogger exposed. Why so foul?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The guy had successfully hidden his identity for about five years, while posting all kinds of sexually charged abuse to the Internet about many people, including me. But now we know.

But Wendy Sullivan, the Girl on the Right, has officially found out who the mysterious Canadian Cynic is. Here is stuff he has said about me. He is Robert PJ Day. Small business owner. Computer genius. Well-read book nerd. Anti-creationist debater

A Linux genius, apparently. [Foul language warning re his posts and any reports on them. ]

Here is part of what Sullivan said, once she traced him:

Outing bloggers isn’t usually my thing. I don’t see a point to it. But when you repeatedly abuse and demean people because they do not march in lockstep with you, I’m sorry but you deserve it. I am not a cunt, Robert. Nor a douchebag. Neither is Kathy Shaidle, Kate, Connie Fournier, Sandy Crux, Suzanne Fortin or anyone else on the web you don’t like.

I am not above strong language and hyperbole, Robert, but I am not beneath you. You are not special. I do not dispute that you are extremely smart and well-versed in your subjects of choice. But referring to to those you feel superior to as “cunts”, “wankers”, “douchebags”, “assholes” and more doesn’t make you sound brilliant at all. It makes you sound sad and lonely. It also makes you seem very cowardly, because I know you would never call me a cunt to my face. You would never wander into downtown Toronto and meet with half the people you have insulted – on a one-to-one or at a party – and insult them the way you do behind your chosen alias.

Perhaps not. The thing I know from covering the intelligent design controversy is that a number of people like Cynic give themselves the right to pour obscene contempt and abuse at the public. Obviously, those people are frightened of something.

What would your mother say, Robert, if she knew that you referred to a woman older than she probably is as a douchebag? ( I assume that your mother is still with us. If not, I apologize, one orphan to the next. ) Is that how she raised you?

He had decided to raise the abuse level last night for me, presumably in response to being outed. The Centre for Inquiry is sponsoring it. Did those people really sit there and listen?

Can you be good without God? I’d never necessarily maintained that, but now I am beginning to wonder.

Apparently, Day proclaimed himself to be “coming out in public” at that venue. But only because bloggers outed him first.

Sullivan tells me his recent posts have featured greatly toned down language. It figures.

Some people have morality. Others rely on avoiding exposure.

Okay, now the Contest Question: Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?

The winner will receive a free copy of Expelled Here are the contest rules.

Note: Entries that merely claim it isn’t happening will not be judged. Too many people here know otherwise.

Comments
David Kellogg @47, Surely we can discuss all manner of topics (philosophy, theology etc.) without having to worry about the unwarranted, faulty connection of religion to ID. It should be no surprise that ID advocates are interested in other topics besides purely scientific endeavors. I hardly see how such discussions should be precluded.HouseStreetRoom
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Gil,
Such abuse comes with the territory. He warned us that this would be the case. I’ll let you figure out who He was, since you have such a superb and insightful intellect.
Dr. Dembski? I kid: I know you're speaking of Jesus. But I don't really think of Uncommon Descent as Jesus's "territory." And in other threads we (that is, we silly evolutionists) keep being told we don't understand ID because it has "nothing to do with religion."David Kellogg
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
Bornagain: Nothing is beyond the reach of the darwinian flying spaghetti monster, a.k.a. chance.William J. Murray
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Mr Bear, Anonymous blogging breeds vileness because their is no accountability. It is indisputable evidence of man’s fallen nature. Are you practicing what you are preaching? Is your name really Baylor Bear? Or should I assume you are fallen?Nakashima
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
Gil, it's hard to feel convinced either when you're busy putting your opponents into boxes [24]. Your own account has you going from one kind of zealotry to another. I'm glad you've found meaning and satisfaction in your life, but not everybody who disagrees with is like the jerk you apparently used to be.David Kellogg
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
Hi Gil, I don't know if you have since this interesting tidbit before, but in case you haven't here it is: Laminin Protein Molecule - Louie Giglio - a very cool video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0-NPPIeeRk Laminin Protein Molecule - diagram http://www.soulharvest.net/resources/laminin+banner+2.png The Laminins - authors Peter Elkblom and Rupert Timpl: "laminins hold cells and tissues together." "Electron microscopy reveals a cross-like shape for all laminins investigated so far." http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/laminin.htm Laminin is made up of 3712 amino acids,,, 20^3712 = 10^26822 ,,,To put this in terms similar to what William Dembski would use, this protein molecule complex of 3712 amino acids is well beyond the reach of the 10^150 probabilistic resource available to the universe.bornagain77
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
As I said, your call. It's not my call. I'm not a moderator. I just take abuse from people like you and try to deal with it as best I can. Such abuse comes with the territory. He warned us that this would be the case. I'll let you figure out who He was, since you have such a superb and insightful intellect.GilDodgen
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
mereologist -By “being good” I mean behaving in ways that our society generally considers morally appropriate, such as not killing each other, not cheating or stealing, helping others in need, being honest, paying our taxes, etc. I agree that you don't need to believe in God to submit to societal pressure. Actually, I would claim that the test for goodness is acting against the mores of society.tribune7
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
Lock says: "One need not point fingers at his neighbor to find such sin. I just look in the mirror." Exactly. That was my point. The thread starts with a story of someone who calls others names, then a number of contributors proceed to censure that individual while doing the same thing. "If hypocrisy is going to be the standard then I am afraid everyone here is disqualified out of hand; yourself included Iconofid." Why are we singling out one name caller, then? I doubt whether the blogger who inspired this thread has suggested that anyone deserves death, but your verses do. And if those verses apply to everyone, why quote them in answer to Ms. O'Leary's question about "Darwinists"? "Calling a prostitute a prostitute is not viscious. Calling her ‘a cunt’ is." I thought Ms. O'Leary made her living as a journalist. :) Whatever, calling anyone a "cunt" is certainly rude. It's not as low as implying that someone deserves death, though, don't you agree?iconofid
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Dear Alan, Thank you for this profound and insightful contribution to the discussion.
You're wecome, Gil.
I presume that I am not up to your intellectual level either.
We all have vaying abilities in different activties. I respect your accomplishments in music and hang-gliding.
If that is the case, please post comments with substance, or please do us the favor of getting perpetually lost in irrelevancy elsewhere.
It's a dilemma. Discuss or close down the discussion. Your call.
Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request.As I said, your call.
Alan Fox
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
I'd like to request that the obvious troll Alan Fox be I.P. banned if possible. Thank you.ShawnBoy
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Alan Fox: David, stop baiting Gil. Just because he is not up to your intellectual level is no reason to take pot-shots. We don’t want him to flounce out again, do we? Dear Alan, Thank you for this profound and insightful contribution to the discussion. I presume that I am not up to your intellectual level either. If that is the case, please post comments with substance, or please do us the favor of getting perpetually lost in irrelevancy elsewhere. Thanks in advance for your consideration of this request.GilDodgen
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Why do people ask: "Are you OK?" rather than "Are you hurt," or "How can I help?"Alan Fox
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Iconofid writes: Why do so many anti-Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction, and do so with such blatant hypocrisy? Speaking for what I presumptuously consider the majority of Christian thinkers, it isn't Darwinists per se that the charges of Romans 1 are leveled against. It is mankind. One need not point fingers at his neighbor to find such sin. I just look in the mirror. That is one of the reasons I know Romans 1 is true. Someone once said that 'the charge of hypocrisy is vice paying a compliment to virtue'. If hypocrisy is going to be the standard then I am afraid everyone here is disqualified out of hand; yourself included Iconofid. There is only one man, who is even argued to have never been one. Take your charges against Him. Even as a Christian my nasty temper and deneanor has followed me further than I have often cared to see. But the more I see it in myself, face it, and confess it, the more I keep my right mind. Calling a prostitute a prostitue is not viscious. Calling her 'a cunt' is.Lock
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
That whole comment was filled to overflowing with friendliness. It wasn't meant to be filled with friendliness; it was meant to be convicting. It is only through a sense of conviction that restoration can begin, and this is an ongoing process. Contrary to popular contemporary secular belief, self-esteem (e.g., "I'm OK, You're OK") is destructive, especially when one is not worthy of esteem. That includes you, me, and every human who has ever lived. I'm not OK, you're not OK, and not one of us is OK. If you think you're OK, you're in a bigger state of not-OK than people who admit they're not OK. OK?GilDodgen
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Hoki 21, you write, "Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?" Why do blacks steal so much? [DO they? Most of the world's blacks live in places where punishment for theft is far more severe than in North America. You don't see that much of it there. If African Americans have a high rate of convictions for theft, there are a number of reasons: Chump change jobs servicing the rich; a culture of victimhood, often promoted by people with political ambitions; the tendency of the underclass and the working poor to go to jail far more often than the wealthy, who can hire better lawyers to defend them, are simply a few. O.J. Simpson did not go to jail, but Charlie Jefferson who stole a carton of cigs from the corner gas probably will.] How come so many muslims are terrorists? [Very few Muslims are terrorists. But terrorists kill more Muslims than anyone else, as far as I can see, because they are easier to find in Muslim countries where most terrorists hang out. And speaking out may bring reprisals.] Why do christians endorse genocide? [I haven't found that in the Catechism or anywhere else.] ... In case it's not obvious, I'm making a point here. Is it lost on anyone? [No, but I must say it is not a very good point. Few African Americans not into gansta rap, or Muslims, or Christians would feel comfortable with what many Darwinists - who are in academic life or professional communities - feel comfortable saying, or even hearing. There must be some reason, and I am interested in hearing suggestions.]O'Leary
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Denyse O'Leary: "Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?" Well, reading down the thread, many Darwinists are, apparently: ... cry-baby table-pounders-; bullies who deserve to be punched squarely on the nose; uncivil; vile, and illustrative of man's fallen nature; have probably suffered child abuse and are subconsciously reacting; ..."have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.... are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.... are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."; the fiercest of beasts; nihilists; hostile and immoral; vitriolic and filthy. Wow! Right up to deserving death! Just call me a douchebag anytime! Perhaps we should ask: Why do so many anti-Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction, and do so with such blatant hypocrisy? :)iconofid
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
David, stop baiting Gil. Just because he is not up to your intellectual level is no reason to take pot-shots. We don't want him to flounce out again, do we?Alan Fox
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
Flannery 14, you make an important point here. Darwin and his circle would have been banished from polite society if they talked that way, or worse. Even in the 1950s, very few - if any - convinced Darwinists would behave this way. Granted there has been a widespread collapse of civility, not everyone has participated with equal eagerness. Lots goes on at Panda's Thumb that we wouldn't allow here. I am not saying that makes us more righteous, just less likely to participate in the collapse of civility. So I would like to know why a number of widely known Darwin defenders don't seem anxious at all to follow the civility standards of Darwin's circle or of, say Ernst Mayr's.O'Leary
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Gil:
Rather than engaging in personal, brutally honest soul-searching, the Darwinian religious fanatic — in his suffering, angst, and misery — lashes out in desperation against what he presumes to be his enemy, but which in fact is his friend.
That whole comment was filled to overflowing with friendliness. I feel loved.David Kellogg
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
mereologist @19, If "good" is defined by what societies dictate, then it is arbitrary, as are the meanings of descriptors such as "better" and "best." If morality is derived from ideology, any group or society may freely ground "goodness" and "rightness" in what they deem acceptable. We therefore have no way to say which is better or worse (except from the perspective of utility, which is a road we should be more than weary of going down). Meaningful judgement are no longer possible. Through what mechanism does society (which after all is only the aggregate of many individuals behaving via their own volition) go about deciding what is and isnt good? If there is no set, unchanging standard, how does one go about gauging progress (in the moral sense). Consider this bit of wisdom from Lewis concerning God's goodness: "To say that the moral law is God's law is no final solution. Are these things right because God commands them or does God command them because they are right? If the first, if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the "righteous Lord." If the second, then we seem to be admitting a cosmic dyarchy, or even making God Himself the mere executor of a law somehow external and antecendent to His own being. Both views are intolerable. At this point we must remind ourselves that Christian theology does not believe God to be a person. It believes Him to be such that in Him a trinity of persons is consistent with a unity of Deity. In that sense it believes Him to be something very different from a person, just as a cube, in which six squares are consistent with unity of the body, is different from a square. (Flatlanders, attempting to imagine a cube, would either imagine the six squares coinciding, and thus destroy their distinctness, or else imagine them set out side by side and thus destroy the unity. Our difficulties about the Trinity are much of the same kind.)...But it might be permissible to lay down two negations: that God neither obeys nor creates the moral law. The good is uncreated; it could never have been otherwise; it has in it no shadow of contingency; it lies, as Plato said, on the other side of existence...God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God." Excerpts from "The Poison of Subjectivism" by C.S. Lewis. I realize we've gone off on a tangent here, so for that I apologize. It's the 4th, so what am I doing on the internet? Happy 4th of July, all.HouseStreetRoom
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
@Lock Nice insight. I'd never looked at that passage from this perspective. Parapharasing Jesus' words elsewhere, happy are those who realize that they are spiritually poor, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.Phinehas
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
@mereologist
I think a better question is “Can you be good without believing in God?”
Actually, I think the better question is the original one.Phinehas
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Gil writes: 3) When one’s worldview, in which one has invested his entire philosophical life, comes under attack, he becomes hostile, especially if that worldview exonerates him from moral accountability. I can also relate. Was full of hate to one level or another myself once. I was rich with knowledge (or so I thought). It was my greatest treasure, and I defended it ruthlessly. It's a long story, but when I finally got around to reading the gospel accounts I was stunned at one particular passage (among many others)... Matthew 19:23-30 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" 26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." I always thought it was about the rich (materially), but obviously those hearing Him understood it to condemn everyone. That is is clue to the whole context. I was far from rich materially then and still. But I was rich in spirit. And those who are so abusive, as I once was, have tremendous wealth in the form of imagined autonomy, wisdom, and moral uprightness to protect. It's a long road to humilty from there. I can't even say I have reached it myself. But I am on 'the way' thanks to God providing it. I could never have taken the path, untill I gave up blazing my own trail for my own glory.Lock
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction? Here’s my take. I’ve been on both sides of the divide. 1) Darwinism is nihilism: We are the unplanned products of a mindless, purposeless, undirected natural process that did not have us in mind. The consequences of this assumption are obvious, inescapable, and soul-destroying. 2) Misery loves company. 3) When one’s worldview, in which one has invested his entire philosophical life, comes under attack, he becomes hostile, especially if that worldview exonerates him from moral accountability. I can attest in particular to point number 3. As a devout, militant atheist, I not only thought that belief in God, and especially Christianity, was stupid, I thought it was bad, and had a visceral desire to defeat it, because it meant that everything I believed about everything that mattered was not only wrong, but destructive. I shared this story with a member of our worship team at church and he commented: “You didn’t just hate Christianity, you wanted to chase it down and kill it.” Indeed I did, just as Saul of Tarsus did. Fortunately, I discovered that the Darwinian myth was a Himalayan pile of nonsense, when considered in the light of modern biological science, computational theory, mathematics, and information-based systems integration. So, here’s my bottom-line hypothesis concerning the vitriol, filth, and tormented-soul diatribes from so many Darwinists: We really are made in the image of God, but in a fallen state from which we have no power to rescue ourselves in our own strength. Every human heart contains a God-shaped vacuum. We were designed that way. Rather than engaging in personal, brutally honest soul-searching, the Darwinian religious fanatic -- in his suffering, angst, and misery -- lashes out in desperation against what he presumes to be his enemy, but which in fact is his friend.GilDodgen
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Q. Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction? It is certainly common. Heard some of it a couple days ago on the Michael Medved show. And I have experienced it myself (debating skill and grace not withstanding). I thought I would respond by putting a few passages together in answer to the mystery of the hostile babbling soul. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. James 3:5 13 Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle? 14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth? 15 His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together; 16 each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. 17 They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted. 18 His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn. 19 Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. 21 His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth. Job 41 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short. Revelation 12:12 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 1John 2:18 My question is... who will convert (or convince) them otherwise? 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. 19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword. Job 40 We are dealing with the fiercest of beast; mankind in rebellion against God. In my opinion (which is obviously not original) That is why so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction.Lock
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Hoki:
Why do blacks steal so much?
So much what? What blacks?
How come so many muslims are terrorists?
How many? What is the percentage of non terrorist muslims to terrorist? What was obviously lost on Hoki was the first Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction? was not an absolute and is easily defended.Joseph
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?
Why do blacks steal so much? How come so many muslims are terrorists? Why do christians endorse genocide? ... In case it's not obvious, I'm making a point here. Is it lost on anyone?Hoki
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
mereologist:
By “being good” I mean behaving in ways that our society generally considers morally appropriate,
And yet what is "good" in one society isn't "good" in another.
such as not killing each other, not cheating or stealing, helping others in need, being honest, paying our taxes, etc.
And what society is this?Joseph
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
tribune7 and HouseStreetRoom, By "being good" I mean behaving in ways that our society generally considers morally appropriate, such as not killing each other, not cheating or stealing, helping others in need, being honest, paying our taxes, etc. Belief in God is clearly not necessary for "being good", since atheists can and do engage in these "good" behaviors. Not only is belief in God unnecessary, but it does not even serve to increase these "good" behaviors, as the quote from William Lobdell illustrates.mereologist
July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply