Thursday, August 17, 2006

Cry Baby Atheism

I've been really interested with what's been going on between the Discomfiter, John Loftus, and Ed Babinski. It's been an excellent show in how atheists are inconsistent with their beliefs, as well as how they’re little cry babies. Here's why:

It all started when someone (it could have been anyone, including Loftus) left a comment from, allegedly, John Loftus. If you clicked on the link it took you to John Loftus' page. That is, if it was a fake, there was no way to distinguish it from the real, allegedly, Loftus. Can two people even have the same thing like that on blogger? Maybe.

Anyway, the comment was from the alleged Loftus to the Discomfiter. Since it's deleted I can't copy and paste it, but essentially it implied that John Loftus had homosexual urges for the Discomfiter.

Next, Loftus, Babinski, and Dagoods started to complain about this, about how mean it was for someone to, allegedly, post falsely under Loftus' name.. All of a sudden these atheists took the moral high ground. Here's a quote:

Ed Babinski: "Or just someone who likes to forge blogger's names and even steal the identities of other people when you post entries on a blog to make it seem like that other person is a "child molester?" Or send people emails from phoney [sic] addresses to make it look like they were sent by that person's friends?

If there's a hell, it appears you're already in it."SOURCE

Likewise, Loftus also called the person who, allegedly, posted under Loftus' name, "sick" and that "they went to far."

They have since called for removal of this, alleged, fake post.

This is funny because there have been PLENTY of posts which were defamatory of Steve Hays, Paul Manata, Josh Brisby, Gene Cook, The Discomfiter, and Jesus himself. Here's a couple:

"Paul, be sure to take Gene's tiny **** out ******** long enough to speak in complete sentences [sic] in your interview tomorrow!"

Here's another,



WHAT A F****** PIECE OF S*** HE IS!!!!! "

And another,

"Suck my Brisby DISCOMFITER!!!!"

SOURCE for the above

Someone else also called Steve Hays gay and a piece of s****. And, I won't even bother repeating what they said about Jesus!

Where was the outcry from the atheists? Nowhere!

What's worse is that Ed Babinski wrote a post about the Discomfiter, BEFORE this brouhaha about Loftus happened, in which he called the Discomfiter a "Gay Atheist". (Interesting to note the use of "gay" as a slam was also what was used by the, allegedly, fake Loftus to defame Loftus!)

In the comments section of the above post (again, BEFORE the comment about John was posted) we see John Loftus making allegations about the Discomfiter. Loftus writes,

Loftus: "I have maintained all along that the only thing that may keep people like the discomfiter from torturing and killing me for blasphemy is that he lacks the political power to do so. He will deny this, of course. But once someone is a non-person you can do anything you want to him, and that's scary. He is too stupid to see it."

This implies that the Discomfiter would murder John Loftus, and that the Discomfiter is stupid. So, John can call someone a murderer but someone can't call John a homosexual? Both are wrong, but the point here is that John's a cry baby hypocrite.

Furthermore, let's look at what Loftus said about me before:

Loftus: "Mark my words, Paul, you will beat your wife when she disagrees with you in the future. If I were her I would be scared to marry you."

That offended me, but did I EVER throw a fit and demand Loftus remove it? On T-blog there are hundreds of defamatory comments about Steve, gene, Evan, and myself. Do we ask delete them? Do we whine? No. But, for us, we know that all that matters is what the Father thinks of us. And, Christians generally have thicker-skin than cry baby atheists.

Anyway, here's another one from Loftus.

Loftus: ""She (Manata's wife) must be the silent type, the agreeable type, the humble/submissive type, and the the (sic) doting wife."

Here Loftus takes a shot at my wife! She's never blogged or commented. Loftus doesn't know here, and yet he attacks her. He's a real piece of work complaining about the, alleged, defamatory comment while he's said the above!

Now, here's what Loftus said to Travis White, a fine Christian who has, in my estimation, never sunk as low as I have (which is much lower than Steve has! :-).

Loftus: "Travis, I cannot believe you are a Philosophy student. You belong here. I did not try to refute Idealism, idiot."

Now, it gets worse. John Loftus has claimed that there is no evil. John overreacted to this incident. he didn't try to "understand" the person who, allegedly, did this. John Loftus writes about "wrong things,"

Loftus: "People don't misbehave because they are evil, they may just be sick. Punishment isn't what people need, so much as healing and understanding."

Why didn't John try to "understand" this guy? Furthermore, in
this post, John Loftus tells us that,

Loftus: "...morals do not have an ultimate foundation."

And so Loftus shows that he's made in God's image. Loftus acts outraged at this incident, he and Babinski act as if this were some morally *evil* and *wrong* thing for the, alleged, fake Loftus to do. But, the problem is that Loftus and Babinski do not believe there are any objective morals. So, Loftus and Babinski are making a big stink about their OPINION. How funny.

Lastly, this is all very interesting. I don't even know if it's possible to have two blogger users with the same ID. Could this have been Loftus trying to discredit the Discomfiter? We already saw he doesn't believe there's any real evil in the world. We already saw how he talked about my wife, Travis, and me. We saw the use of calling people "gay" already used by Babinski.

Furthermore, Loftus and Babinski were the ones who tattle-taled on the Discomfiter. They made it a point to bring this issue to light.

If this was someone who faked Loftus' ID then he took risk. He had possible legal ramifications. If it was Loftus, then he would have no legal issues involved. No risk for him to do this to himself, and an upside - discredit the Discomfiter, who's made Loftus look very foolish IMHO.

Was it Loftus? Who knows. I know the Discomfiter said he was tracing it.

My points are simple:

1) No one said nary a word when atheists were slamming Christians on the Discomfiter’s site.

2) Loftus and Babinski name called before any of this went down and then had a sudden attack of morality when someone else, allegedly, made fun of Loftus.

3) Loftus has said things just as bad, but no one ever tattle-taled on him, like a 4 yr. old.

4) Atheists are, many times, little cry babies.

5) Loftus' outrage is inconsistent with his espoused views on morality. So, his complaining has backfired on him.


  1. I should add that neither me nor my wife care about what John Loftus said, so we're not whinning. I simply used those examples for illustriative purposes.

    All I care about is my standing before God.

    But, Loftus should know that my wife and I played chess the other night and I won, therefore I have beaten my wife!

  2. And yet, when I won she cussed at me, so I bitch slapped her around and threw her in her room for the night. She deserved it, and tommorrow I think I'll do it again.

    Too bad that YOU can delete this post, whereas John could not.

  3. What you miss is that other people were posting using John's name, whereas the posts you cited were just mean shit. Unworthy of anyone to take that kind of tone, of course, since it's counterproductive when the discourse falls to that level.

  4. I like whacking my meat, and when I'm not doing that I like sucking it too.

  5. Okay okay, let's stop the madness. I get your point. I'm the Discomfiter and I'll delete that person's comment who stole John's name now.

    But since my wife is in her room crying, I think I'll watch a little porn and beat my meat again.

  6. Oh, well I gues I was wrong about being able to post under people's ID :-)

    Anyway, I don't care about the above.

    Hopefully Loftus and Babinski will condemn the above activity.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. the real me gets a picture next to my name.

    Paul M. above was also me.

    I am so proud of the Discomfiter.

    The atheists let him get under their skin.

    They showed by getting so upset that what he did bothered them.

    What he did was show how us Christians think of atheist's arguments, mainly John's.

    What he did was let the atheists get to see their own reasoning, in an embellished form, but basically the same arguments as they give.

    So, whoever he was, he won.

    Discomfiter: 1

    Atheism: 0

    Also, I hope that Loftus and Babinski note that I'm not whining about the above.

    There's a marked difference between the Christian and the atheist.

    The Christian is self-confident, the atheist is a self-conscious cry baby. A tattle tale. A whiner. A complainer. A hypocrite. And a self-refuting deluded fool who says there's no morality but then acts morally outraged at what happened, allegedly, to John.

  9. Just in case folks are interested, there is a set of Rules for this blog. It is under Rules of Engagement to the right on the main page.

    Here is Rule 5:

    5. Expletives, abbreviated or not, will not be tolerated. Ad hominem invective, as a substitute for reasoned argument, is unacceptable.

    Now, we've been quite gracious with respect to the combox. I'd add that Tblogue was much more high brow before the different "anonymous" folks started showing up. Instead, I'm finding the combox is becoming increasingly littered with comments that are littered with expletives and invective.

    Here's the deal. This is our house, not yours. Is it too much to ask that you respect our rules, which are, as it is, quite liberal, particularly when we do not screen the combox?

    I have to say this for Mr. Loftus and Mr. Morgan. While I disagree with the content of what they write, in terms of their presentation, they rarely intersperse their words with needless colorful metaphors. They generally exercise restraint and respect. Speaking for myself, I appreciate that. When they do use them, I don't find it bothersome. On the other hand, I'm finding that their lesser followers haven't outgrown their adolescence.

    You're free to post what you wish, within certain bounds. Your language is one of those boundaries. If you want to litter your speech with expletives, then go over to one of the low brow atheist blogs or better yet to a discussion board.

  10. I think it's either Babinski or Loftus pretending to be Manata. But you know what's funny, and what makes Babinski and Loftus look more like cry-babies, they had to run to Victor Reppert (whom I totally respect) and tell on whoever the perpetrator is. You can just hear them screaming: "Wah! we're a bunch of little girlie-men and we need Dr. Reppert to help us." Figures.

  11. Hey Mr. Loftus, just to have it on record, and so that we're clear, do you have homosexual tendencies? And do you find other men attractive? Do you have fantasies about little boys and midgets? Is it because of these fantasies that you're divorced? And are you willing to take a lying-detecting test just to be sure you're telling the truth?

  12. It's amazing how much time you spend on your blogging! Why is it so darn important to give these people the attention you give? You just keep giving more of yourself to these atheists, Steve. How much are you giving to God? Or do you think you are giving to God by giving to atheists?

  13. Frank asks do you have homosexual tendencies? And do you find other men attractive?

    John, Frank asks these things because he's got an interest here. Must be, otherwise why would he ask?

  14. Brad,

    Frank did not ask those questions.


    this wrestling in the mud is all my doing, Steve didn't post this.


  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  16. Hey Brad,

    You wrote: John, Frank asks these things because he's got an interest here. Must be, otherwise why would he ask?

    My answer: Well Brad, I was asking to keep Loftus from crying like a baby. If he has it on record that he has no homosexual tendencies (or little boy fantasies for that matter) then he has nothing to worry or cry about.

    Easy isn't it?


  17. Frank, I think the question is: why do you worry about it? Why would anyone care about John Loftus' sexual appetite to begin with? The content of your questions speaks about Frank Walton, not about John Loftus.

  18. Paul,

    There are other ways to make your point. It is obviously inconsistent for John Loftus and Ed Babinski to complain about a moral wrong when they deny an objective moral standard. However, Christians are not to partake in coarse jesting, nor let unwholesome words proceed out of their mouths. Some levity and joking is fine of course, but that whole thing went too far. It was also immature, you've got to admit this. You may have made your point, but have you honored the Lord in doing so? I don't think so, and now the atheists and apostates have fodder for their blogs against Christianity because of the actions of a Christian. I know "the discomfiter" may not have said any of those things that have been contested, but he did set up the forum for them to be posted. Please consider what I say as a Christian brother, this whole incident is not of the Spirit of Christ....

    God bless,


  19. SBL,

    I, nor the discomfiter posted those things.

    Who says it was a Christian anyway?

    Nothing I or the discomfiter did on the discomfiter was wrong. He had an open comments section, anyone could post anything.

    What was immature? The parody? Well, I didn't think so. Indeed, the fact that is bothered atheists so much speak volumes.

    The atheists and apostates have fodder because of, possibly, the actions of some atheists trying to make Christians look bad. There's no way to stop this, discomfiter or not.

    The Discomfiter set up the forum, yes. I do not think there was anything wrong with it. To act as if the discomfiter was wrong, because of what some atheists did, it wrong, IMHO. I mean, look at this comments section. Steve set up the forum. He argues with atheists. We get some nasty comments. Is Steve to blame for setting up the forum?

    The discomfiter yielded fruit. In fact, I was told about a man in the hospital who laughed at it and was impressed that Christians did these kinds of things.

    The discomfiter bothered the heck out of the atheists. Know why?

    Seriously, there was not *that much* difference in his argument than John's.

    Also, it showed the atheist community what Christians really thought of their arguments.

    So, I do not feel that I or the discomfiter did anything wrong. Did some people post stupid things in the comments section? yes. But they do so here and almost anywhere. You can't stop stupidity.

    Anyway, FWIW.

  20. Frank, I think the question is: why do you worry about it? Why would anyone care about John Loftus' sexual appetite to begin with?

    Aw, okay. Hey Johnny, if you're gay, dude, I can understand why you're marriage failed.

  21. Shining and burning light. For what it's worth, I agree that things on the Discomfiter went too far. Whoever has been using bad words is off. For what it's worth, I ideantified the following types of regular posters on the site:

    1.Atheists trying to expose the Discomfiter with reason.

    2. The small group of surreal posters (Zack, the Green Man, etc.) who were creating some sort of odd alternate reality.

    3. Christians laughing.

    4. Atheists with a sense of humour failure.

    5. Christians using the site to take cheap shots at atheism.

    Now, it seems to me that the Loftus clone was either in groups 1, 4, or 5. I would suggest that the Discomfiter ban anonymous comments, and thus avoid the problems. Equally, if John Loftus had an avatar identifying fake comments would be easier.

    And on cry-babies, while I sympathise with Loftus, if it isn't true, then it doesn't matter. In my brief teaching career I was (falsely) accused of similar rubbish. That's no fun, I agree, John, but it grubbies the person who makes the accusation, not the unjustly accused.

  22. The Green Man stands with the unjustly treated.

    Anyone with a real blogger id who wishes to continue in the world of the Discomfiter is welcome to see The Vengeance of the Green Man

  23. Let's see how this is done...

  24. Right, that's it, worked out how they did it. And you're right, the avatar doesn't appear, and so long as you use the same name, where there is not avatar, no-one can tell the difference.

    That's smart. Just don't expect me to tell. Although someone on the Discomfiter's site did share the secret. Sadly that only multiplies the number of suspects.

  25. John,

    The reason I wanted to know if you were gay is that...I'd love to talk more about it over coffee if you're game. [I am the guy who made goatse the man he is today]

  26. Well, just think, guys, I am the guy who hosted a poll to see how attractive John Loftus is...I it really so hard to see?

  27. Paul,

    There's nothing wrong with a parody that ridules ideas or arguments, but in my opinion discomfitingchristianity went over that line into personal squabbling. Also, may I suggest there is quite a difference between what went on there in the comments section and what goes on here at Triablogue? Steve's not responsible for the comments certain people make, but he can regulate them when necessary. "The Discomfiter" allowed a lot of trash in his combox, even blasphemy and the denigration of the name of Christ. And who deleted the comment John Loftus made where he tried to defend himself? Listen, if the Discomfiter is a Christian he should have no problem revealing who he is, no embarrasment, if in fact the parody was just harmless good fun to make a point about weak atheistic argumentation. That doesn't appear to be the case though, since we don't know who he is. And if he's an atheist, well, why is he doing this? I guess we'll just have to disagree about this brother, but I don't think the discomfiter produced much good fruit, it looks more like rotten fruit to me (look at what they're doing now with posting under your name and Frank Walton's, just in this thread). Getting under the atheist's skin is not my goal as a Christian. If my being a faithful Christian does that, then there is nothing I can do about it, but I don't purpose to do it. Anyway, while your point about DC's argumentation was made, in my opinion it wasn't worth it....


  28. Since I entered the foray here, only fair to point out my response: Here

  29. Well SBL,

    The dosscomfiter is closing down his blog.

    Maybe he wanted to be a free speech atheist and so he had to allow open comments?

    I don't think he ever went to far, some commenters, yes.

    Anyway, it was probably atheists who did this in order to end the Discomfiters blog.

    As far as bearing fruit, well you don't know what it did. But, I know that God can strike a staight blow with a crooked stick.

    The majority of people thought it was funny, descent parody, and that it made atheists look silly.

    Anyway, Big D is done.

  30. Hi Paul,

    I hope you know I wasn't trying to shoot you down. I was attempting to be my brother's keeper and be faithful to the Lord and you as a Christian brother. That's all. If anything I said was not according to Scripture, may it fall to the ground. Peace brother...


  31. You call me surreal?

    I knew there were people out there who didn't believe there was a dog.

    Regarding Discomfiting, the female said this elsewhere (my editorial notes in []): "....when I read that comment – though I judged it tacky and unnecessary and was not amused-- I did not for an instant take it for anything more than a[n] off joke, no matter whom it was written by. (And there ha[d] been plenty of those written by atheists so far.) Most people read the blog because it was hilarious.... I think most of the comments reflected that attitude, except for a few people who didn't know how to take a joke.

    "Just to say that I don't think anyone took that comment [about John Loftus] seriously; that those of us who have a sense of humor knew that comment wasn't even very amusing, and that I believe Mr. Loftus' reputation is perfectly safe with any person of normal intelligence."

    Big D was obviously making waves precisely because he was so funny, and he (at least) was good clean fun. Too bad other people weren't.

  32. I would tend to agree with those who believe that the anonymous post was a deliberate attempt to shut down the Discomfiter's Blog. This succeeded.

    So much for free speech! There should have been another way. If you disagree with what a person is saying, it is out of line to get them silenced, whether you are a Christian or an atheist.

    Much of what went on after the books post was malicious. 64 comments were made, many of them abusive and foul mouthed, and at that point someone started to seriously impersonate people.

    Those crying 'foul' should look to the people who repeatedly posted foul and abusive comments. This generated neither heat nor light.

    I agree with Zack, for the most part the blog was funny, although the comment in question was way over the line, no-one took it seriously. As someone who has actually been questioned over false allegations of this sort, I still think Loftus over-reacted by threatening to go to law.

  33. asvHiraeth;

    There should have been another way.

    There was. The Discomfiter could have easily made a blog entry, explaining what happened, (Paul Manata has now more fully stated The Discomfiter’s position) apologize if it offended any Christians (I understand that non-Christians are not entitled to such an apology) and then continued on. In blog-world, it is a rarity to see someone swallow their pride and do this. Easier to shut it down.

    A blog such as The Discomfiter has a shelf-life. If not this incident, at some time in the future. Rest in Peace. (I will confess I only read it initially, other than these last few days.) Always can start another—“Spelunking Christianity.” :-)

    As to whether Loftus over-reacted, I don’t know. What I do know is how many thousands of dollars I have been paid in defending false accusations such as this, and can understand why someone else would not take too kindly to it.

  34. The female was threatened with litigation for a Greek drama she composed (“Ebay of Eritrea”) in which this passage, based on real life, occurred:

    Shade of the seller:
    She is LIAR!!!!!!
    The more exclamatory marks I use
    The more belief I generate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Her affirmation is ridiculous because I only accept Paypal!!!!!!!!!!
    Anybody can see that, and follow the logic of this!!!!!!!!!!
    And if not, you're a LIAR TOO!!!!!!

    A swift impartial judgement, if you please!
    or at least a slow, seven month process in which
    fair representation is impossible to either party!

    Shade of the Seller:
    BEWAR Sellers!!!!!!!! BEWAR!!!!!!!!!!! Be very, very WAR!!!!!

    Please notice that the seller's identification was not even hinted at, and her own name was disguised to protect the innocent. Nevertheless a libel case was threatened against her. Interestingly it never materialized. And the seller continues unhindered in her underhand business practices to this day, though the female cannot put her toe out on ebay with the feedback this seller left her.

    You think this is surreal but sadly, it's not. At least sadly for the female. The male thinks it's just as well for her to be kept off of ebay.

    I tend to agree with Hiraeth, who agrees with me. It is usually people who can't return genuine laughter in kind who threaten lawsuits over remarks that no one could take seriously. And while that particular remark was neither genuine nor funny, from the disproportionate reaction it generated one has to wonder if the threat of a lawsuit was influenced by other factors. In any case I'm glad it didn't materalize. That makes me think much better of Mr. Loftus than I could otherwise have done.

    Big D if you're reading this, thanks for all the times I fell off my chair laughing. Of course I fall off my chair pretty frequently. I'm missing a back leg and it's hard to balance on my tail.

  35. Thank you Zack and Dagoods. Zack, I agree that the Discomiter was good fun and should have gone on. Yes, he could have apologised. I suspect, however, the sheer volume of the assault on the combox was the problem in this case. It would have happened again. And again.

    What appears to have happened is that with the books post, a very large number of anonymous commenters, most of them malicious began to regularly visit the Discomfiter and post ghastly filth. For some reason, after initially switching on comment moderation, this was turned off. After a short pause, the pimply ones flooded back, each seeing who could outdo who in ghastliness. Yes, there was a limited shelf-life, but the site died prematurely and should have been left on.

    Dagoods, on your last paragraph:

    'As to whether Loftus over-reacted, I don’t know. What I do know is how many thousands of dollars I have been paid in defending false accusations such as this, and can understand why someone else would not take too kindly to it.'

    Am I to understand that Loftus was falsely accused of child abuse before a court? Or that he has been in the past? If so, then my heart goes out to him. However, if not, then the suggestion was contemptible and should have been treated as such. As I say, I've been falsely accused myself, however I was able to prove that the allegations had no substance fairly easily.

  36. At any rate, the story told by the Green Man is much more fun.

  37. Apparently your article on the subject of "Cry Baby Atheism" is flawed because you have not included prior statements made by Manata to which Loftus and others were expressing their verbal outrage.

    In my own case, allow me to present the evidence along with elucidating my response:


    Industry: Fashion
    Occupation: Interior Decorating

    Refuting Christians, reading John Loftus' blogs and books, and remodeling Tuscan style villas


    To the "gay atheist" blog owner of Discomfiting Christianity [I put the words "gay atheist" in quotation marks because I did not believe the Discomfiter was "gay" nor an "atheist" but I did perceive him to be poking fun at BOTH gays and atheists.--E.T.B.]:

    I suggest dropping the balpeen-hammer hints that homosexuals [and atheists--E.T.B.] are worthy of derision, and also suggest you leave sarcasm to the experts [experts whom I proceeded to name--E.T.B.]

    I also spoke to Vic about the faked Loftus blogger comment because Vic runs a blog and would not want people to sign in and add comments using another person's blogger I.D. so I told Vic to cease allowing anonymous comments which could lead to such abuse of blogger identities.