Home > Bob the Troll > Bob the Troll

Bob the Troll

It looks like I am going to have to expand this from simply NewEnglandBob to other trolls as well. Who are of course welcome to defend themselves, but seem to either be unable or unwilling to come and do so. I assume it has something to do with the fact that when their comments are shown by themselves, they are particularly ugly and mean spirited looking. Getting to the point…

Well, TruthOverFaith to the Bob the Troll series. As you know, a NewEnglandBob often exhibits itself in a flurry of comments with no thought, no content and mostly attacks directed at other commenter with whom it disagrees but it is unable to articulate why in any form that humans would recognize. TruthOverFaith appears to be doing the same thing. Long lost brothers perhaps? Father and son (love child maybe, I think “truth” is younger).

Oh my lord!! Them evil homo-lovin’ New Yorkers just legalized same-sex marriage!!

Stop making Jesus cry!!

I’m so sorry, Jack. I know how much you Jesus nutters hate them homos. But don’t cry too much, you can always move to Uganda.

As typical of both liberal trolls, they don’t seem to either want to stay on topic or on related sidebars, but go off in a direction that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I am guilty of getting off on sidebars, but at least you can draw a line between the subject and what I ramble on about. Here is another:

Great stuff Judge!

I hope Jacks Jesus-brain doesn’t overload trying to rebut your finely articulated responses.

When unable to articulate response yourself, congratulate others on what you cannot do, and attack the blogger. It’s amazing that TOF (TruthOverFaith) is still among the living. One would think natural selection would have culled this mental weakling from the herd by now.

” we certainly have no moral authority to question it’s efficacy.”

Umm, maybe your incoherent Jesus brain can’t question the “efficacy” of servile Stone Age garbage foisted upon impoverished peasants, but those of us free from the reason-draining effects of religious lunacy are quite capable of doing so.

Do I need to go any further than pointing out that some of the greatest scientists and thinkers ever have been devoutly religious? That doesn’t prove the validity of religion, but it certainly tends to counter the fact that having religion makes one superior in the sense of one’s intelligence. As this atheist clearly demonstrates by it’s commenting. Again, It would surprise me to learn it can walk and talk at the same time. Last one for now:

“There is no evidence that non-religious creatures could have given us the experiences that make us human.”

“There is no evidence that non-masterbating creatures could have given us the experiences that make us human.”

Try and spot the more asinine comment.
Yeah, I know, it is tough!!
More of that fine Christian logic!

Even most atheists realize that without the religions we have had and the influence they had we would not be who we are today. Indeed, one of the reasons humans started clinging together in bigger groups may have been religion. There is no way to know why we settled down and grouped in ever larger concentrations, but it is a solid theory. If true it could mean we would still be living in caves and clubing each other with mammoth bones. It is perfectally solid logic to say: “if not for our past we would not be who we are today.” A second grader can tell you that if we had the ability to change the past the present would be very different, but TOF doesn’t seem to be able to. It’s possible that he ever made it out of first grade. Likely because instead of learning he just called the teacher names whenever she said anything.

In closing I would just like to say to TOF, Shut the hell up. I’m sure Jack would be pleased to have your opposing view points on his blog, but what you are doing now makes you look like an idiot and undermines the positions you champion. Grow up and make some contributions or shut your hole.

 

Advertisements
Categories: Bob the Troll
  1. 2011/06/25 at 06:55

    (Let’s see if adding this will convince WordPress to publish this damn comment.)

    The last comment wasn’t trolling. I don’t particularly want to sift through the delusions of Jack Hudson, especially considering his intense level of dishonesty, but it looks like he’s trying to argue that religion is what makes us human. His reasoning is that, well, we’re religious! AND we’re human! It’s a tautology that relies upon the fact that we don’t know what other intelligent creatures would be/are like. ToF makes a good parody of Jack’s argument when he points out that there is equally no evidence that non-masturbating creatures could have given us the experiences that make us human. It’s the exact same logic.

    As far as your contention that it is religion that brought us together, we’ve been social creatures for far longer than we’ve had religion. I agree that religion does foster greater in-group mentalities, but it is our fundamental biology that brought us into groups in the first place.

  2. 2011/06/25 at 07:05

    Jack is entitled to his opinions like everyone else.

    In so far as our biology bringing us together, thats true to an extent, we have always been pack animals, but the size of our group drastically increased sometime around when they figure language came into being. The reason is obviously not because we could talk but because we could share ideas and explanations about our surroundings. At this point we are not talking about religions with moral codes but ones explaining phenomena. That is likely what brought us together.

    There are other possibilities, but like I said and like what I think Jack means, the religions we have had have undoubtedly made us the humans we are today. We would have very different senses of right and wrong, different institutions different everything. We might be behind where we are today had we not come together when we had, the catholic church was a hotbed for science before science cam into its own, clerical work, the gathering and organization of data, is known as such because it was clerics that did this type of work.

    We can’t know what it would have been like had we not created or discovered the religions and institutions that we have. That’s my point and I think Jacks also. Our current and past religions have had a huge part in shaping what it means to be human. Areas of the world where there are/were non-Abrahamic religions have a hugely different sense of individual value, something that sets the west apart from them in a huge way. At the very least you might have a world of Japans, gone pro, individuals having little or no value.

    Religion is has been more important than people give it credit for being in shaping who we are, atheist, christian, muslim, agnostic, from lewiston, etc.

  3. 2011/06/25 at 07:08

    As for the last comment not being ‘trolly’, a fish is still a fish if its on land and troll is still a troll if it occasionally goes someplace it usually doesn’t.

  4. 2011/06/25 at 15:57

    Thanks for the good thoughts Nate. Given the number of reasonable comments and discussions between atheists and myself, you and others at my blog, I think TOF merely makes himself look all the more foolish with his occasionally inane drive-by, ad hom laden blathering’s. I would think most atheists would be as embarrassed by him as we are for him.

  5. 2011/06/25 at 21:33

    What brought us together was the end of the ice age and thus a significantly decreased need to lead nomadic lives. But even before that – in fact, for millions of years before that – we were social animals. Religion didn’t cause that.

    As for religion making us what we are today, it’s a trivial point. Yes, the history of the world is largely relevant to what is happening today. But you and I both know that isn’t dishonest Jack’s point. He’s trying to attribute all the accomplishments of the past few centuries, and some accomplishments beyond, the religion – specifically, his little religion. Come on. Let’s get real.

    The connection between Catholicism and science isn’t one that leaves the Church in a good light. The moment any fact showed up that was mildly inconvenient, it was suppressed. Furthermore, science is pursued – yes, I’ll say it – for the sake of science. There are practical goals, there are personal goals, there are social goals, yes, but at its purest science is pursued for its own sake – and that means it isn’t discarded when it becomes inconvenient. The Church explicitly did this and that is why it isn’t associated with the promotion of everything that happened during the Enlightenment and ever since.

    But if you want to talk about the greatest period in thinking, we have to go to Mesopotamia. It was simple freedom of thought that brought that about. It wasn’t something intrinsic about Islam, though that religion did coincide with science quite comfortably until 1100.

  6. 2011/06/25 at 21:45

    Religion and science have never really been at odds in any significant way. Specific ideas that were counter to the ideas of the day have been fought against and suppressed, but the same can be said of other subjects and other institutions, having nothing to do with science or religion. There is nothing special about religion here.

    I still say the specifics of our the Wests predominant religion have made a huge impact. Do you suppose that had Charles Martel not turned the Muslims back at Tours that we would be where we are today? Or is it easy to foresee that there would be huge differences, both philosophical and scientific/technological.

  7. TruthOverfaith
    2011/06/26 at 03:17

    Hey there Bob,

    Thank you so much for taking time away from masterbating to comment on my comment.(Were you imagining Rush Limbaugh or the virgin Mary?)

    Since Jack Hudson feels the need to post asinine garbage on Atheist blogs that I enjoy I really see no reason why I can’t return the favor.

    And Bob, if you don’t care for my comments, I’m assuming that you know what you can do about that, right?

    O.K Bob, I’m sure Glen Beck is about to say something profound at any minute, so put down your Sara Palin photo, put your pecker back in your pants and to turn on some FAUX nuse!!

  8. 2011/06/26 at 03:39

    Who is it you are trying to address?

    And others may put up with your nonsense, but I won’t. You are welcome so long as you make an effort to contribute. If you wish to do nothing but sling insults and other things that do nothing but undermine you views and embarrass those who might share them, you can go away, because you’ll end up with another post such as this one.

  9. TruthOverfaith
    2011/06/26 at 03:54

    “If you wish to do nothing but sling insults ..”

    Gee, Nate, I seem to have noticed a few unkind words in your opening paragraph.

    I was just following your pathetic lead, moron.

  10. 2011/06/26 at 03:59

    Certainly, you get what you give. Now if you want to continue that, go away or expect your childishness to be given back to you, if you have something substantive than lets have it.

  11. TruthOverfaith
    2011/06/26 at 05:34

    Hey Nate, just remember, I didn’t start out posting on your pathetic little bog. You opened this interaction up yourself.

    Now get back to trying to decide which Republican Jesus-Freak you’re going to vote for next year! (Do any of them believe that Earth is more than 10,000 years old?)

  12. 2011/06/26 at 17:37

    Let me ask you this: You know Obama is a “jesus” freak too, right? And let me ask you another question… Does the age of the earth change what their economic policies are? If not, than I don’t give a damn if they think it is flat and rests on the back of a turtle.

    Their religion is completely irrelevant to their performance as president. Even if you weren’t just making slanderous remarks like a school yard bully, you know the kind of bully who is actually kind of scrawny and ends up crying after being thumped by those he imagined being superior to. Intellectually you are clearly a lightweight, concerned with nothing more than repeating what you have heard others say.

    You are right about one thing. I discovered your trollyness and made a post about it.

  13. 2011/06/28 at 19:44

    I had forgotten about this, but it seems like I should bring it up. A while ago you had made this comment (it in the comments section, I had moved it there) on my blog without provocation of any kind.

    https://congressshallmakenolaw.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/under-the-bridge-where-trolls-belong/

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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

%d bloggers like this: