Atheism is a religion by Joe Cienkowski: A Video Review. Part 3


8 comments on “Atheism is a religion by Joe Cienkowski: A Video Review. Part 3

  1. Every time I see a link to a review of Joes book from you I get all excited because you actually say what we’re all thinking, the problem is Joe will never understand any of those points that you’re trying to put across to him because as far as he’s concerned he knows best and that is that, end of story. That’s why atheists are more open minded, I don’t know any atheists that claim to know the answer to everything, we hunt out answers, we learn, we get things wrong, it’s all part of life and a valuable part that you miss out on if you go around with your head buried in a bible.

  2. Mate, i’m feeling the need to send you food parcels or possibly valium tablets as you wade through these reams of bullshit. The idea that there must be a god because there is no evidence that there isn’t a god is about as batshit as its possible to be, whilst being practically impossible to argue against when faced with such inbred (in more ways than one) stupidity in such staggering quantities – You cant prove there is no FSM, therefore there must be one. Soldier on, my friend, soldier on, and please include more swearing and calling Joe a c*nt.

  3. Thanks guys! It is something I can only find the energy to do now and then. If I had to read it all in one sitting I think I’d end up either jumping out of the window or on the first flight headed for Joe’s house with a giant bag of whoop ass in my pocket with his name written all over it.

    Thanks for continuing to spread the tweets and facebooks and whatnot that these videos are out there for people to watch. If it stops just one person from chugging down the same creationist spodge that fills Joe’s windpipe it was all worth it.

  4. I’m impressed time and again that you have the stamina to take on the gormless prattle that barely-literate folks like Joe slap together time and again. Seriously, his little pamphlet full of regurgitated factoids (as defined by having a passing resemblance to facts but being empirically false) isn’t even coherently written. Unless you’re really bad at reading, I guess. If I was feeling generous (and I don’t usually), I’d give him the benefit of the doubt unless you can prove it says “empathic” instead of “emphatic”. Or that any of the other linguistic briarpatches you read aloud are actually in the text. :)

    Quite entertaining, my friend. For your sanity though, might I recommend that you read a chapter with a few shots of vodka on hand, marking when you take them, then once you’re done, read the chapter again and see if those spots were really the best places to drink? Once you narrow down the retardery, you can make a more cogent argument against the meat, rather than attacking the potatoes on the fly.

  5. While I have got used to his methods of repetition on Twitter, I would find it painful to read the same statement four or five times on one page. I hope for your sake that his writing style and use of language improves as the pages are turned.

    From what little of the meat of his argument that has been covered so far, the coherency problems I have so far put down to trying to respond to multiple questioners within the boundaries of 140 characters seem to be less to do with the limitations of the medium and more to do with the cohesiveness of his thought processes.

    Furthermore I have had to get used to his changing tack on a regular basis, more often than not, when – in my opinion, he seems to have argued himself into a corner. This hasn’t led to my acceptance of his theories or proof, as it appears that he tacitly admits the weakness of his standpoint by the very act of abandoning it to take us away on another tangent.

    While it may, ok IS, true that my own grasp on grammar and punctuation are flawed, I don’t hold myself up as a writer. Joe, if you are reading this, your credibility would be greatly increased by proof-reading your work.

  6. I’m pleased to see your lovely head of hair still intact, Jim; the IDEA of that idiot writing makes me want to do damage; the thought of reading that ‘book’… no can do.

    As much as all this is perhaps futile in respect to our Peachy buddy, it is not at all where it comes to others who might come here or to your Twitter feed. If all it does is plant the seed of a question with a reader, this is monumental; The grandest oak grows from the tiniest seed.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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