Not all Christians are lunatics: Joe Cienkowski wants to squirt juice on your hot ass

EDIT 11th Nov 2010: Since this article was first published, Heidi has revealed her true colours. It’s very sad, but I’m leaving the article up for purposes of clarity. Please read here after you’re done: https://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/the-latest-video-from-qualiasoup-is-excellent/#comment-6673

It’s easy to forget, sometimes, that the radical lunatics we spend so much time trying to publicly shame only represent a tiny percentage of the wider Christian community. That’s why I should probably apologies for not spending a little more time now and then telling you all about some of the non-crazy Christians out there, who take an interest in science and rationalism and do understand many of the cogent arguments put forward.

Heidi, twitter name @heidiraff, first came to my attention when she agreed to take part in a podcast with myself and two other non-theists. She immediately impressed me with her attempts to remind her fellow Christians on the panel of what Jesus is actually said to have taught, as opposed to their sometimes rather selective interpretation of the New Testament—and how, to them, it somehow justifies teaching people things that aren’t true. She did this in a non-confrontational way and also managed to remain respectful of the opinions expressed on my side of the debate, even though we strongly disagree in some key areas.

The podcast was hosted by Juanita Berguson (@JuanitaBerguson) a self-confessed ‘Kingdom Capitalist’ who sells a particularly weird blend of Jesus and anti-science, ‘New Age’ spirituality.

Heidi was as disgusted at the way myself and the other atheists on the panel were treated by Juanita and her business partners at the time. Readers will recall, when myself and @antitheistangie took objection to Juanita silencing our microphones before we’d been allowed to answer some serious allegations of “struggling with the format”, Juanita’s puppy dog Paul Collier decided to leave some rather choice comments on her behalf.

So when Heidi was again invited to take part in another of Juanita’s podcasts she did so with some reticence. What happened next was both sad and also rather predictable. Heidi writes:

Last Sunday, I get this message from Juanita. She tells me that she has this wonderful Christian scientist. He’s going to be on the show and she’ll let him give a talk and then allow atheists to ask him questions. I thought, wow, pretty cool. I’m thinking it’s gotta be someone with the genome community … but stupidly, I did not ask about his credentials. I just assumed that Juanita had a good person, especially because she said this guy was a very good friend of hers. It never crossed my mind that he’d be crazy.

So then … I go on Twitter for about 2-3 hours, and I’m hyping it like crazy. I probably hit up about 20 different atheists I know, and I’m telling everyone that this scientist is going to be on and it’s going to be a really great show, etc.

Then … the guy started talking. My stomach literally dropped and I got so dizzy. I have all these atheists pinging me on Twitter and sending me DMs saying, “What the heck, Heidi? Why would you promote this guy?”

And I’m totally mortified, so I explain that I didn’t know. To demonstrate that I meant business, I hung up my line and then sent out messages on the atheist hashtag, saying I was sorry that I had wasted everyone’s time and that I didn’t know that the “scientist” was going to be like that.

As if that wasn’t bad enough Juanita then started to private message Heidi, accusing her of “bashing her guest” and “supporting the atheist cause”. That’s right folks, as soon as you call someone out for talking nonsense, unless you fall in-line and say nothing, you’re on “their side”.

Now as if it wasn’t wonderful enough that, as you can see from her own blog, Heidi really is very much into Jesus and not at all on anyone’s “side”, her distain for charlatans who speak on her behalf doesn’t simply stop there.

Regular readers are familiar with my on-going campaign to publicly ridicule Joe Cienkowski—a twitter evangelical who spouts spurious nonsense about how, in his book (there’s your first clue) he can “prove evolution is a lie and the religion of atheism”. See the last week’s previous blog entries for more background.

Now, I have to say up-front, although it didn’t directly involve Heidi, I am proud to say I first found out about Joe’s latest exploits directly from her. So sickened was she, that Joe presumed to preach on behalf of Christianity that the only way to show the strength of your faith, is to encourage others to believe in things that aren’t true, that she blogged a great example of the difference between people who are genuine in their religious conviction and people who try to exploit it, after the screen-grab opposite began to circulate twitter last evening: christiansafehouse.blogspot.com

Originally posted by @jeanybeany80, the only thing more amusing than seeing the self-same physical evidence Joe repeatedly asserts as invalid in his Jihad against rationalism, logic, free inquiry and intellectual honesty, is that his dual identity as both a paragon of virtue and a sleazy letch was apparent to anyone from the first moment they first encountered him. That inner dialogue between intuition and reason, which the Joe Cienkowski’s of this world insist is unattainable to those of us with no illusions about ‘spirituality’ or ‘supreme moral authority’ told all of us, Christian and atheist, that there was something not quite right about @JoeCienkowski from the moment he appeared. And what do you know, we were right.

Now, how does this affect my reviewing his book, when it arrives? It doesn’t. The planned video series will go ahead—and I just wanted to close by addressing some of the concerns of those of you who are saying that feeding the troll is just giving him what he wants.

I agree that, under normal circumstances, this is good advice. However, if Joe was pushing a book about how he can “prove with scientific evidence” that black people are intellectually inferior to white people, or that—as it is decreed in 1st Timothy, that women should be subservient to men and learn in silence, society would shun and discredit him with the sort of deafening silence some people are advocating.

But if we continue to afford religious lunatics some kind of wild card right, to assert equally nonsensical things about the teaching of science as a large group of people in society once did about race and sex, then we’re not silencing them at all—we’re allowing them to continue unchallenged.

So, I will still be asking those of you interested in following the video series (when the book itself actually arrives) to donate to UNICEF to off-set the cost of the book itself ten times over and I will still be twittering and blogging, reddit’ing and YouTubing as much attention in the general direction of @JoeCienkowski as I possibly can, because I genuinely believe the only way we’re going to win against these people is in the broad daylight of reason and truth and with a little help from our non-crazy Christian friends.

70 comments on “Not all Christians are lunatics: Joe Cienkowski wants to squirt juice on your hot ass

  1. Kudos! Not only do we need to continuously question Joe and place him under a microscope, we need to make a conscious effort to put out the word that this kind of person is dangerous and should under no circumstances be tolerated. I plan on poking this particular monkey as often as possible through Twitter and my own website.

  2. yeah I have a paint program that can make those little expressions laid over the picture,

    you can do that with many photo programs folks, it looks fake that picture with cartoonized captions

  3. those little cartoon ad ons, where the wording is, I have that on my own photo programs,

    that is a picture that was laid over..

  4. I think Joe liked it better when he had 20 twitter followers who thought he was a scientist because he had “creation biologist” on his profile page.

    Now he has over 200, most of whom only subscribed so they can ridicule him, he’s starting to show his true colours.

  5. Joe was offered a charitable donation in the amount of $100, made in his name to Doctors Without Borders in exchange for a copy of his book. He refused that offer under the guise of “not understanding” the offer. It was at that point in my ongoing debate with him that I realized he is not a “Christian” at all but instead an ex-con who exchanged selling baggies full of drugs for selling books full of lies. If Joe truly believed his own viterole perhaps he would be worth all the effort that has been thrown his way. He believes nothing of the sort. His only aim is to sell $5 self published nonsense. He has been exposed for the con man, charlatan “money changer” he is. Aside from warning those foolish enough to buy Joe’s book (and I suspect those who would cling to the word of Joe are pretty much beyond the capability of rational thought and discourse) I’m not certain there is anymore that can be said. Joe Cienkowski is not a “lunatic fringe Christian” because he is not a Christian at all.

  6. it looks like a set up to me, the girl I mean, that is how it appears, a set up, like she was told to try to do that

  7. alright i saw the link, but looks like jeany is a home wrecker to me too, like she encouraged that behavior, remind you of anyone?

    LMFAO

    it looks like she instigated some of that convo?

    so is she innocent then to flaunt her peach?

  8. looks like the girl encouraged, so half of it is her fault for flaunting her peach to a married man…

    so not all blame is on joe folks

  9. i know i jsut saw that now, sorry, i never saw it before because i try not to waste time with this sort of shit..

  10. I have like 6 reviews/giveaways coming, working on etc..very busy too busy for this

  11. !st – rated as top notch !!!!!!!

    2nd – this is a prayer answered.

    3rd – I have a really dumb question, please bear with me.
    When I go to a book store, browsing for fiction, why does a 300 pg novel approximatley cost $12.00 Cdn, whereas these books Mr. Cienkowski is promoting run at the same price Amer., and only have 116 + pgs?

    And may I say again to Christians and non-Believers alike. The Bible does say; the gift of salvation is given freely and to be passed on in the same gesture. “IF” Mr. Cienkowski is writing and selling these books for a “charitable” effort? Good for you sir, but we have no evidence as to what your motives are in this regard. And I do hope any such charity can be more gracious to you than I will be.

    I have read as much public info(not much) I can find about you sir, and from what I gather on you – you allow yourself to be promoted as a “self taught” biblical student (amazon.com reviews)with “references?” to some “theologians?” that have “inspired?” you. OK fine; but I’m not satisfied with the spin, and it looks like this simple layman is not alone.

    I know that I’ve forgotten something… LOL :) ETE

  12. ProphetLady, there are none so blind as they who will not see. As opposed to defending Joe Cienkowski for no reason other than he claims to be a Christian and therefore shares your faith, why not learn about the man behind the words and defend your faith against him? Joe and those of his ilk are the true enemies of Christianity – they are the secret enemy profiting from fear and destroying your faith from “inside the temple”. Give thought to that. And ask yourself if this man, this con-artist represents what you believe, what you stand for, the image you want the world to hold of “good God fearing” folk. I would suspect the answer for most true Christians is a resounding “no!”

  13. It seems to me that someone with so much self righteousness should also have the “moral” fortitude to refrain from Peachy Butt Temptation. Is he so weak that he can’t resist naughtiness in just a simple conversation on the internet? What will he do when faced with a real life physical offer? Take it and blame the “instigator” for his acceptance? Her “flaunting” is no excuse for his behavior. You sound like those people who blame the woman for the rape. What if someone flaunts his banana to his wife and she she makes an off handed stiff banana comment? Will you blame the male instigator for flaunting his banana to a married woman? Looks like the man encouraged, so half of it is his fault.

    You sit there and cast your hate spew about people who don’t believe what you believe, assuming a moral superiority based on fear. Some people actually do the right thing because they have a conscience and know the difference between right and wrong. THAT is true morality.

    Whether or not he was set up doesn’t matter. Unlike Job, he failed the test.

  14. Can I just say I don’t think there is any credible evidence @jeanybeany80 seduced Peach Boy into anything at all.

    As for Prophetlady speculating that Peach Boy must have been tricked (presumably by the devil) into something even he himself later apologised for… …you can’t make this shit up. These people will literally believe in anything, before they see the completely obvious.

    “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” – Bertrand Russell

  15. excuse but the girl looks like a whore flaunting her nice little ass in front of a married man, bottom line, she should be taking her own faults and recognizing them for what they are

    they are both responsible for that conversation..

    and kikki

    my faith tells me he told his wife the truth, he confessed it to God, and he confessed his sin publicly, unlike many I see on this posting to be honest eh?

    she also forgave him

    so now that he confessed his sin, when is the marriage teasing whore going to do the same thing folks?

  16. so joe is not allowed to eat then? yes we all need to donate, blah blah blah

    but sometimes you need money for your family to eat, a donation given to someone else does not feed your kids

    BALANCE

  17. I’ve learned something new this week and it’s really very encouraging. If there’s one thing extreme rightwing religionists like @Prophetwriter and @JoeCienkowski hate more than non-religious people like me, who’ve worked out their scam, it’s Christians who’ve worked out their lies as well.

    I’m genuinely heartened that something I’ve been hoping would happen for a long time appears to be taking its first tentative steps towards becoming a reality—a genuine dialogue between ordinary users of social media websites, who just so happen to be religious and those of us who aren’t, but who similarly try not to lump-in the liars with the legitimately faithful.

    We need to exchange ideas with each other over how to expose the extremists in Christianity before they gain the foothold they seek, parallel with that of the Islamic extremists who take offence at everything from cartoon drawings to the equality of women.

    Our free exchange of ideas will cause heated arguments and some people will be offended, but the biggest insult is pretending charlatans will go away, if we ignore them. They won’t. So, to my Christian readers, I say this ahead of time, over the coming weeks I will be challenging some of your most cherished beliefs and I will not hold back. But by the same score I don’t expect you to hold back on me either, if you feel as if you have something to add which genuinely leads to a better understanding or which corrects my mistaken characterisation of your faith.

    Unlike just about every other pro-Christianity blog I’ve seen I do not moderate or censor the comments section and anyone can post. In fact the only thing that will get you banned is hate speech or the advocating of violence against anyone.

    So, thanks again to everyone who has both commented on this and other stories from this blog this week—and the same goes to those of you subscribed to the email and RSS feed who prefer only to read and / or link-through from your blog and facebook / twitter et cetera. I’m looking forward to Joe’s book arriving hopefully next week and opening the floodgates.

    Peace and love! Jim.

  18. I am deeply hurt by prophetladys comments but she’s entitled to her opinions. I ended that conversation at that point because it was glaringly obvious that he has no evidence to back up his rants also, I wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole. I know plenty of kind caring Christians and he is definately not one of them and I wanted to show people proof as Im always banging on about proof and I would not like to be accused of being a hypocrite.

  19. I really wouldn’t worry too much about her, Jeanybeany. She’s away with the fairies. If she can’t admit when she’s made a mistake when the proof is right in front of her there’s no-one here or anywhere else who’s going to take anything she says about you seriously, unless they’re as mad as she is.

    I think you’re a legend for doing what you did and if you lived anywhere near me I’d drag you into the nearest pub and buy you a massive ice cold jar of truth serum. Xx

  20. Where does ProphetLady get off? She’s in the same wingnut category with Joe C. And as far as I’m concerned he hasn’t fully apologized until he does so to Jeany. What a crock. Their kind of religious fundamentalism absolutely must be exposed. Let’s keep the pressure on Joe, prophetlady, all other religious outcasts like them. We cannot tolerate those who try to absolve their guilt by passing it off to the sky god or his son, Jessie.

  21. Thanks for pointing out that there are believers who have sense…
    We need to reveal people like Juanita and Joe and make sure all know what they are about…I feel sorry for those who are misled by them.

  22. no the lady clearly speaks about her peach, she says it very clearly about her little peach, does not look like rape to me, she is flaunting it by discussing it openly

    she says

    I’d like to think my rear is very peachy, and winks with a face,

    so she is putting the meat on the plate,

  23. oh jeany please

    you said your peach was whatever and winked, feel hurt but you placed a piece of temptation on the plate,,,

    your innocent act is not being seen by me dear

    how many more married men have you winked at, and spoke about your ass or vagina to?

  24. or does jeany forget saying to a married man

    I’d like to think my rear is peachy with a wink?

    do you have memory loss of this sentence dear?

  25. and naturalist, I flip you the bird, you people have not changed in two thousand years, back then though they nailed us to a cross, us religion people,

    you people are blinded k, the woman spoke about her rear being peachy with a married man then winked

    girl I see right threw your shit, and wonder how many more married men have you done that with or lead on?

  26. Prophetlady, you really need to take your particular brand of crazy elsewhere. Having a good open dialog between those with faith and those without requires respecting all parties. Something you clearly have an issue with.

  27. So there you have it. It was atheists who nailed Jewish insurrectionists to the cross, not the Romans.

    As for Jeanybeany’s sweet peachy ass covered in juice, I think you’ll find the speech bubble with those words emanating from it is on Joe’s side of the screen—hence the reason he apologised for it, not once but twice. You really are fighting the wrong battle here Prophetlady, but I shouldn’t imagine that’ll stop you digging yourself any deeper.

  28. Actually Joe was the initiator…he mentioned putting his mouth on it and juice squirting and peaches first. He is a grown man and doesn’t need to blame anyone for what comes out of his OWN mouth. So what…even if she teased him, HE on HIS OWN ACCORD posted what he did. She didn’t hold his hand. Plus he seems to already have quite the sexual imagination with the form in her underwear and slowly stripping…he needed no help LOL.

  29. I once thought that Joe was sincere in his beliefs, now I am not so sure. Months ago, I saw that Joe was using FB as a platform for proselytizing, which really made little difference to me. But when he started telling untruths on evolution and atheism (among other things), I would post responses really just to help set him straight on some mistaken ideas he had. He was not really open to discussion. He would often resort to insults and personal attacks which I tried to highlight to others on the threads as a shortcoming, since I was simply attempting some rational discourse. Recently, all FB contact stopped, and I think I was blocked. Or is it possible for someone to get thrown off FB?

    Anyway, I strongly agree with the need to highlight this as bad behavior. As I told him on FB:

    “If there is NO proof that “god did it”, then to say “god did it” and close your mind to other possible answers is simple, irrational ignorance. It is also bigotry. It is immoral. You are being bigoted here. It is why rational people speak so loudly against your claims. Your claims are bigoted, and bigotry is immoral.”

    Keep up the good fight.

  30. He really doesn’t care about any of that Mike McLaughlin. He’s a liar for Jesus profiteer. He is to genuine Christianity what Piers Morgan is to journalistic integrity—and I say that in defence of my non-crazy Christian friends as a fervent atheist. He really isn’t religious at all, let alone Christian. If he was Christian he’d have at the very least a basic grasp of what Jesus actually said. If he were a Christian, he would know that the entire premise of educational excellence for all and intellectual honesty was devised and propagated around the world by the venerable Saint Bede. But he has no concept of or interest in any of these things. The only thing Joe cares about is Joe.

  31. WOW guys! I step away for 3/4 of a day – – – AWW man! What’s all this sticky stuff on the floor?

    I promised Jim some time ago that I would not spout scripture; but I’m herniating here (mostly from LOL & ROTFL, so I’ll just point again at the Book and paraphrase. Darkness will be exposed by the Light, and the Light will shine brighter than the darkness.

    What is happening here is that the truth is coming out in a manner that may or may not be… how can I say?..Koosher! But it is coming out.

    We should direct Joe to:
    “The Jesus I Never Knew” Philip Yancey, C 1995, Zondervan Pub. & “What Jesus Meant” Gary Wills, 2005, Pub.? I offer these two books for Joe’s edification because, he failed his: English, biology and humanities exams. Joe; even as a simple layman, I can read and understand these two books, and they even have fts and akngs and just about everything else that goes with an “enlightening” read.

    Now; I know that you certainly didn’t pick out a good publisher, what with Xulon Press’ current track record (DISHONEST)… hey look @ that segway!

    Hey prophet lady; I think that Joe’s family is in trouble – if they think he’s going to support them by “writing” – is that the right term here?

    Jim: I applaud your 10:24pm & 3:15am comments, they are right on the button!

    Anyways, it’s Joe’s turn to wash this sticky floor – it is his mess, am I right?

    There’s this little ditty going through my head…this little light of mine…I’m gonna let it shine!

  32. Hey Jim! What’s your track record for most comments on a thread? Let’s GO – I can’t wait for the book, are we gonna burn it too?

  33. No, Darren Kyme Nicholson, we most certainly are not going to burn Joe’s book—at least not with matches. To your second question, the most amount of comments on one thread runs in the hundreds.

    I would also pick up on the suggestion that’s been floating around that Joe needs the money for his family. We all know times are tough, but things aren’t going to get better by propagating bad ideas, or allowing bad ideas to slip under the radar. Joe himself may be small fry, but the target isn’t really Joe at all; it’s the multi-million-dollar publishing and marketing machine that encourages people like him to wish-away the truth with easy answers and fanciful lies. Since we have to presume that all his book contains is a regurgitation of the same nonsense we’ve seen from AnswersInGenesis, The Discovery Institute, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the movie Expelled and so on, the premise of the video series will be not so much to lampoon Peach Boy himself, but to expose the political motivation behind those from whom he sourced his misinformation.

    These are the people who are attacking Christianity from within, while foisting an incredibly persuasive argument upon the electorate that the real enemy are secularists and “the liberal media”. The argument is no more sophisticated than a Fox News weather girl. Hitler was an atheist, therefore people who don’t believe in God have an agenda to destroy freedom. That’s it. That is the sum total of the argument they genuinely think ordinary Christians like you are stupid enough to fall for, as a reason to mistrust the non-religious.

    They think Christians are so subservient to whatever they can dress up in religious gobbledegook, that they’ll believe the reason Hitler failed in Europe, was that while he may have dabbled in mass genocide, his real agenda was to spread secular humanism into a rational, peaceful and well educated, disease free world—and that these very terms we use and the vocabulary of the secular world in general, is some sort of code-speak which only people who’ve read Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris can decrypt; that once we’ve successfully made all Christians realise the bible is no more historically accurate than any other ancient artefact, one day there’ll be a knock at your door and you’ll all be herded up in-front of a giant TV screen, where you’ll be forced to watch Rachel Maddow and Ellen DeGeneres re-populate the planet with the donated sperm of Michael Moore and the cast of Glee.

  34. Thank you Jim; well said and presented, I am unable to express myself in same, though I am pleased to meet someone as yourself who can and does venture to the edge of these pits and points them out for all to see and step around – if we as free humans WISH.

    Sites such as this are not loaded with the commercial aspect of our civilization, and that is one of the reasons I am a member.

    Thank you again for your efforts; I know that I am repeating myself here and from earlier posts. But I do want to say; if I had listened to the narrowed minded “Christians” from my past, i wouldn’t be able to be here.

    I understand that when Jesus “tossed the temple,” the beggars finally had an easy work day.

  35. Dude, I’m sorry, I read a couple paragraphs and got to “Heidi was as disgusted at the way myself and the other atheists on the panel…” and “…when myself and @antitheistangie took objection…”.

    This makes you sound like a frigging idiot. I can’t even read the rest.

    Or should myself say “myself can’t even read the rest”. Seriously, WTF?

    Dammit, learn to use words properly.

  36. Well I guess you didn’t do no book learnin’ about them fancy faggot words didja boy? Better git yourself a good CRISS-CHUN edge-oo-kay-shun, like yo’ pappa an’ your pappa’s pappa before her.

  37. GBox:
    To whom are you addressing? Don’t critize the efforts of others. Even I (a simple layman) understand what is being discussed here.

    Help yourself to equal the educated efforts of others if you can.

    And as Jim has already said more than once on this post, we are just ordinary people trying to discuss inportant issues.

    Dude – a “GBox” (here in Canada) defines you as an overt Gay male, on the make – got the drift?

    Thanks for the momentary distraction.

  38. GBox, I’m from England and Jim used the queens English perfectly by refering to himself as “myself and…..”. You obviously aren’t interested in the key subjects of this blog if you’re just looking to pick fault with something that, as far as I can see is faultless.

  39. My favourite thing ever is how these “christians,” dig themselves gaping holes (lined with the sticky juices of their own making), rather than answering questions put to them. They then resort to childish behaviours like blocking….

    The problem with blocking is it exposes the blocker as having got him or herself (yes, Miss Prophet of the appalling grammar, no grasp of punctuation and a mistaken belief she is a writer) into a very deep corner. The only way out of said corners is to admit the means by which they got themselves in there.

    Prophetwriter/Prophitlady would not, under any circumstances answer WHY Cienowski didn’t just terminate the conversation with our Peachy friend. Cienowski is in the US and JeanyBeany is in the UK. As such, there is absolutely no possibility Cienowski was held at gunpoint. He could have easily terminated the conversation. He didn’t and not only did he not, he threw down. Big time. He invites and suggests. Our delicious Peachy friend simply let him. HE entices her, not t’other way round. To her credit, she was probably squirming in discomfort … he’s definitely creepy.

    One could be forgiven for wondering just what is going on with Prophetwriter (or should I say Profit Writer – as she says she is published, although I can’t imagine how… ). She has a very weird relationship with a man who lives nowhere near her (she’s in Canada and he’s in Illinois) and whom she is hell-bent on protecting. She says she’s a feminist but she has a real hate on for women, if her thread on Twitter (@prophetwriter) is to be understood. She accuses our delicious friend of using correct anatomical terms in public but says nothing at all about Joe’s obvious pursuit. This does not a feminist make.

    Not to attack the weak but certain of Miss Prophet’s friends have noted that she has some health issues that may affect her ability to think logically. As for our Joe, he is, by his own admission (via his book’s site on Amazon.com) a failed atheist and a convicted offender. It looks very much like he pulled a typical “I’ve found god” a la Mike Tyson, while in prison.

    Cienowski is married to a woman, who, if her Facebook profile is any indication, has minimal education (I do not mean she is stupid; just that she’s uninformed) and has NO clue of her husband’s internet meanderings. That said, it is sure he has a history of this stuff – his dialogue with our delicious friend is the only coherent writing he’s done; this gives me to believe he does it a LOT. Guaranteed this guy has a pseudonym – probably many. I wouldn’t be uncomfortable wondering who he is elsewhere on line and what, exactly, he’s surfing….

  40. Hello again, WriterWriter. I’ve actually blocked Profit Writer from twitter because she was seriously harshing my mellow. How do you know so much about her?

  41. I noticed prophetlady’s downslide the other day; as the day worn on, she writing skills went with’, probably an indication of after work libation?

    Does anyone remember “Ken’s Labrynth?” The old Dos game where the holes would be hiding in the corners – WAITING!

    Usernames were discussed on CBC radio in or about ’98 – 2000 on the Ideas show about cyberspace. Some of the thoughts discussed were: the inability to assert ones’ honesty, the need for people’s fantasy requirements, and the technology required for a big brother aspect of tracking. Just another step in teaching our civilization how to: lie, hide, deflect, and distract.

    Good points WriterWriter

    I remain truly DKN

  42. Prophetwriter who spoke the word peach first, that would be Joe. Honestly, I think that you may just be a tad bit jealous of a sexy young girl therefore you blame them as you. Um well we know what you look like. Need I say more. Jealous, much.

  43. J.R, look again at the time stamps on the comments. The first comment is at the bottom. The girl mentioned her ‘peachy rear’ with a wink before he responded. That dude walked right into a set up. At first she may have been flirting to extract the ‘evidence’ but when that didn’t work she decided to use the guy’s ridiculous attempt at flirting back to discredit him. No way was she genuinely flirting with him, she’s clearly much more attractive than he is. She had an angle and it’s obvious.

    The funny thing is she needn’t have bothered as the guy discredits himself several dozen times a day on Twitter it seems.

  44. I cannot see why this is stirring quite the argument, to be honest. Clearly “Joe” admitted a mistake, both to his wife and his God/Lord. In my opinion the act of admitting his mistake couples with blame or at fault (a better term).

    “Joe” is an adult who proudly displays his love for his wife on his Twitter profile. If he was true to his wife and most importantly his Christian faith he would have *not* engaged in such communication. His words show me that he has no *creditability* in what his profile says (re: the love of his wife) making his apology pretty worthless. Continuing this conversation shows he acted without morals and ethic.

    He was not forced to continue, subsequent to the first post; he did not have a loaded gun in his mouth. He continued without a thought to his wife and his faith, thinking only with his penis. Joe attempts to act as if he is righteous as a Christian, I would like to inject I am also of the faith, simply this chat caught him with his pants down.. The choice he made to continue shows no love or thought to his wife/marriage/family/faith. Why blame the female she had every right to say what she wished (and wink as she wishes too). Joe had every right to leave the conversation as well as he had the control close the box or inject Biblical scripture into the conversation. He didn’t. He failed himself/his wife/and his Lord.

  45. Joe has a favourite theme he likes to use in his tweets, of saying that in the Ben Stein pro-creationist movie “Expelled” prominent biologist, best-selling author and former Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, Richard Dawkins, believes all life on Earth came from aliens and that therefore Intelligent Design was as likely an explanation for how life came to be as any other ‘theory’.

    Unfortunately for Joe, Dawkins actually said no such thing. The footage used in the movie was actually Dawkins responding to a different question, on the likelihood of life on Earth having being instigated by “an intelligent designer” other than the Israelite god of war, Yahweh—as is believed by creationists. The answer Dawkins gave to this was that panspermia, a theory he does not endorse, was the closest anybody has so far come to exploring this possibility scientifically without recourse to theology; as Dawkins himself explains in this clip:



    Since I first sent this clip to Joe, almost 3 days ago now, he has repeated the lie that Richard Dawkins believes life on Earth came about through “intelligent design” numerous times. When I today asked him once again if he had actually watched the above clip he replied with the following:

    I’ve done all my research. I still have a lot to learn, I admit too. Darwin believed in evolution with no evidence. http://twitter.com/JoeCienkowski/statuses/15051163896

    what exactly are you saying Darwin didn’t say that I attributed to him? He said a vegetable & human have the same origin. http://twitter.com/JoeCienkowski/statuses/15051207785

    you are either 1. liar 2. stupid 3. blind. you don’t seem stupid, and dont’ seem a liar. You are blind. http://twitter.com/JoeCienkowski/statuses/15051633937



    Dawkins cannot be more clear about ID, fingerprint, signature. Come on now? http://twitter.com/JoeCienkowski/statuses/15051674982

    you are obviously not a stupid man, but that is a very stupid statement. Admit Dawkins conceded ID (what’s fingerprint?) http://twitter.com/JoeCienkowski/statuses/15051723851

    You can see that in his first reply, he asserts that the single most important scientist in the modern era built his life’s work on no evidence. Since Dawkins and Darwin are basically one in the same in Peach Boy World I let this complete non-sequitor slip and press him further, on whether or not he’s actually watched the video clip I sent him. I’m still waiting for his reply.

    This is the level of dishonesty Joe has been lulled into by the pro-creationism lobby. This isn’t Joe being “cute” or deliberately trying to elicit a response, this stuff really is taken right off the pages of the creationist propaganda widely available in church bookshops right across the United States. And they’re gunning for your child’s history and politics class next—and if we don’t stop them, they’ll get that too.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/07/rewriting-the-history-books-for-texas-school-children.html

    So I reiterate once again to those who are saying if we ignore the likes of Joe they’ll go away; No, they won’t. The only thing that will show them up for what they are, are their own words held up to the light of public scrutiny.

  46. “the single most important scientist in the modern era”

    Are you serious? Please define the time period you are covering with the term ‘modern era’, and the criteria you are using to judge ‘importance’.

    “The footage used in the movie was actually Dawkins responding to a different question, on the likelihood of life on Earth having being instigated by “an intelligent designer” other than the Israelite god of war, Yahweh—as is believed by creationists.”

    The question was “What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or in evolution?”(sic)
    The dude linked the relevant clip in his fourth response to you. Watch it and you will see Dawkins clearly concede that Intelligent Design is possible, but he maintains that it is possible only if the designers themselves had evolved. (A materialist version of infinite regress?)

    I actually think that the most important part of that film for someone like Joe to focus on is that part when Dawkins admits to having no idea how life started.

  47. Michael: again I think you’re being a bit picky about the minor points here. Not to undermine your clarification, that is duly noted, but the fact is Joe’s entire argument rests on asserting that Dawkins believes one thing in the company of scientists and another in the company of pro-inteligent design film makers; the inference being that he agrees ID holds some credibility, when clearly Dawkins, of all people, does not think that at all.

  48. Hiya,

    RE: Profitwriter: She has blocked me because I put her on the spot. I know she is Canadian and I have heard she has a disorder that may affect her logic – and I make it CLEAR right here and now that I am not judging her on that disorder; only that it seems very much to affect her judgement and rationality.

    I know she has uttered what amount to death wishes/threats to certain people on Twitter and that also makes me wonder about her sanity.
    What made her block me was my asking her what she thought caused Joe to continue that Peach conversation. She wouldn’t (and couldn’t, obviously) show me any means by which he’d been forced to continue an on-line conversation with a woman who was obviously baiting him and with someone who is 8 hours away by air from him – hence, incapable of holding him hostage to the conversation.

    Joe is a liar, a charlatan and he is stupidly bonded to his beliefs in a way that gives me to believe he – like any child having a public temper-tantrum – thinks the louder and longer he yells, the more we will give in.

    He is a decidedly disturbed man and his public admission of incarceration and lapsed atheism are more reason to believe this man has lost his marbles.

    For the record, regarding Joe’s conviction (marijuana), I am utterly and fully opposed to the existing US drug laws as they relate to all drugs. What people choose to ingest is not a criminal matter but a health matter, particularly where it comes to cannabis.

    As for Joe, had he not been convicted of what is absolutely not a crime (consuming weed) he’d probably be a happy, relaxed atheist to this day. So, drawing on that, it is the fault of the drug war that this idiot has been unleashed on us.

    And just in case it is not clear, the last sentence of that statement is entirely in jest. Well, maybe mostly in jest…. Somebody pass the peachy idiot a doob!

  49. Well Joe has been told once again today, by me, that if it’s fame and fortune he’s after, I’m more than happy to help in whatever way I can. He replied with a series of passive aggressive threats and a string of literally incomprehensible nonsense about Richard Dawkins believing in aliens.

    As for Joe’s “conversion” from atheism: to my mind, someone would have to have been the least most intellectually curious person in the universe to have once believed what he now claims to believe about the non-religious position, in terms of morality, cognitive awareness, intellectual honesty, ethical treatment of others, respect for history, theology… I mean I thought the Catholics I was brought up by had a hard-on for “lapsed brethren” but this guy is positively frothing at the mouth. And this while all around him are twittering yet more news of the Jews attacking the Muslims. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall with these fucking brain donors sometimes, it really is. Yeah, that’s right—I said a swear word. What of it?

  50. Jim, like I mentioned earlier on Twitter today, I’m absolutely certain that if we opened up the brain cavities of some wingnuts spouting their crap on Twitter, we’d find pathetic, little raisins crying out for sustenance. And, yes, I believe that Joe-joe the Peach Boy and “Prophetwriter” are included in this list.

  51. What I’m keen to emphasise, once (if) Joe’s book arrives, is that everyone who re-posts the video and links to it and tweets and facebooks and so on and so forth—once Joe has had the right to reply—we all put in as much effort again to encourage people to un-follow him. His twitter followers are almost all atheists waiting to see how bat-shit he can go from one tweet to another, so we need to remind him that the 20 followers he had, when his profile said he was a “creation biologist” to the 248 he currently enjoys, can be taken away from him just as quickly as it was given. I just wish I could be there to see his shit eating face on “Dump Joe Day” :)

  52. I’m sending this out on my old 386; as my “Good?” computer is in the shop.
    Here are two links from You Tube.
    I credit “RevealandVanquish” as source on YT.

    There are no more “original” Joe Cienkowski Vids on You Tube. It seems that someome? left a bump ubder the carpet, and there’s the broom and dustpan over there in the corner.

    Nice try Joe, but there is still evidence of your work out there – and this is not what we mean by cleaning up your mess on the floor.

    Please Guys, don’t offer to smoke a fatti with Joe: He may want to become your bestest pal…

  53. Pingback: June 7th is stop following Joe Cienkowski day « How good is that?

  54. Prophetlady, at our Temple we have just completed the 6th Level Rite of Askeryoth. There is now a verse in the bible that, should you read it, will result in you experiencing some things mentioned in the apocalypse. Spiritual warfare is real, and we are the best. Enjoy your bible study.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s