Joe Cienkowski says the darndest things: Top 5 facts you didn’t know about sighunce

What he actually said:
I don’t know how more plain Richard Dawkin can be;clearly,succincty, in context, admits ID because had to be first self replicating systems.

What he actually thinks:
Richard Dawkins believes aliens impregnated self-replicating intelligent DNA into Anthony Flew.

What he actually said:
Creationism is Christianity. Evolutionism is atheism. Once you believe in evolution, you believe in atheism because this is a main tenet

What he actually thinks:
Billions of people around the world who say they’re Christian are really just liberal European socialist baby murdering lesbian sociopaths who hate our freedom. And I just learned what ‘tenet’ means.

What he actually said:
‘Science’ turned into a groupthink and accepted evolution, and pushed out anything contrary. Evolution ISN’T science. Science can be studie

What he actually thinks:
Everyone in the world apart from me and Jesus have agreed amongst themselves to repeatedly lie to everyone else about the definition of the word ‘fact’.

What he actually said:
Abiogenesis is just ‘spontaneous generation’ repackaged today for consumption. It’s a bunch of crap, and proven false.

What he actually thinks:
Abiogenesis is the same as EVILooshun and recapitulation theory was proven wrong and Ernst Heinkel photocopied embryo drawings from the bible and once there was a man on YouTube and he said it was wrong and I read his book and answersingenesis is real science and Jesus lives in my bread roll.

What he actually said:
What’s unbelievable is atheists call Christians “stupid, naïve, ignorant”, because in reality that’s what they are. How foolish to are they

What he actually thinks:
Fuck, I’m so horny to get me some of that peachy atheist ass.

18 comments on “Joe Cienkowski says the darndest things: Top 5 facts you didn’t know about sighunce

  1. This guy is a full-blown wackaloon. He has yet to say anything that resembles an intelligent, researched position. I don’t think he realizes how much he is damaging the credibility of all Christians with his nonsense.

  2. If anything, my Lord and saviour, he’s galvanising support from non-batshit Christians behind what we’ve been doing for a long time, which is a very encouraging thing. I’ve never received so much mail from people who are religious, but are throughly looking forward to my review of Joe’s book, “Atheism is a religion and so can you”.

  3. Joe had better stop opening his mouth when he’s stoned – because it is really getting difficult to ask him to speak with his foot stuck in it all the time.

    And JOE? you only completed a half “ass” job. The floor is still sticky with something – and it’s still your turn to clean it up

  4. I don’t understand what you think you are going to achieve here Jim. I understand how trolls can make a person crazy (remember Sye T?) but you’ve decided to deal with an obvious spam artist by buying his wares? You’re even aware of the fact that his entire spiel is most likely just a marketing ploy, yet you became his customer anyway.

    The guy has no arguments, just bald assertions. Until he actually presents an argument you do not need to debunk him. The guy is barely even a legible writer ON TWITTER! What on earth will his book be like? (Probably an ineloguent, poorly-reasoned poor man’s version of a Harun Yahya type book, except a lot meaner!)

    I just think your cause would be must better served by focusing on people with actual arguments. It may be more difficult to actually engage with someone like Matt Slick, or Ken Ham or whoever, but they have at least constructed arguments for their beliefs, and put them online for all to see. Even Todd has his own site now, which is full of reasons for/justifications of his beliefs. The web is literally brimming with arguments for you to refute and you are attacking an obvious scammer.

    I know you bought the book so you could see his arguments but I think you are wasting your time. I will give it to you that you do seem to have a clear vision for what you want to achieve with this, but you will have to go for bigger targets to achieve it (in my opinion.) At least you are posting regularly again though :-)

    Also, quickly, I didn’t appreciate being called ‘anti-science’ because I pointed out the circular reasoning in the other thread. I have commented here for quite a while now, and you know I like to look at the evidence for everything and always try to be as objective and logical as I can be.

  5. Michael:

    If I’m wrong; Jim will correct me for stepping out of line, but we have been waiting to put a person like Joe in place. We are sick and tired of their same ol’ same ol’. And I am just waiting to help Jim in any way I can.

    The Joe’s out there irk the ire right out of my soul, and I know it will be worth it. At least take that front row seat and enjoy the show sir! But I also have a feeling that you will pitch your well constructed ideas in the ring too.

    Is Sye T a username?

  6. He was a frustrating but cunning apologist who came to this blog last year. I could be wrong but I believe some of the most highly commented threads were provoked by his ideas.

    He basically set up a site claiming to offer a ‘proof’ of God’s existance. It wasn’t a cogent argument by any means, but he was an intelligent guy and was rather adept at controlling the framework of the discussion so that you were forced to debate him on his own terms.

    His favourite line I think was ‘on what basis do you account for the universal and invariant laws of logic’ or something. If memory serves me right he claimed that non-christians had no basis for logic and were therefore not permitted to make use of it. He claimed that God was the ultimate source of all such abstract universals. He would pose questions, you would try to answer, then he would pose the question again claiming you hadn’t answered, ad nauseum. It was vexing but also a lot of fun.

    Here’s a link to his ‘proof’ if you are interested:

    As for this particular apologist, I suppose your right maybe I should just wait and see what happens, but I don’t hold high hopes given what he has offered so far :-)

  7. Thanks for the link Michael.

    I’m sure that Jim will be enjoying the exercise!

  8. Michael:

    Clever website, but predictably it uses the Bible as a key point of the argument as evidence. They just can’t get away from that book. Unfortunate.

    I would like to see Joe Cienkowski, spammer or otherwise, become victim to an unfortunate circumstance of chance, or as he might call it “An Act of God that proves he works in mysterious ways,” or as everybody else might call it, “Hit by a bus.”

  9. Michael. I will be encouraging people throughout the video series, both on-screen and on the page on this blog which will frame the clips, to donate to UNICEF to off-set the cost of the book going into Joe’s pocket.

    I agree that Sy T. was an order of magnitude more self-contained than Joe, but as I’ve also said Joe really only serves as a catalyst for a video series I’ve had preparations in place to produce now for some time already. As you know I don’t reveal too much about my private life on here, but it is known to some that I own a start-up media production company and this mini project is as much designed to give me a chance to familiarise myself with some of the editing software and encoding techniques required for that as it is a chance to explore and expose the various arguments of the creationist cabal—so there is a practical aspect to all of this as well.

  10. I will admit that I am looking forward to your review, however hypocritical that makes me :-)

  11. Pingback: Evangelicals Struggle With Marketing and the Definition of Atheism - Dexterity Unlimited » Dexterity Unlimited

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s