Reasons to Doubt Dawkins “Hate Mail” was Genuine

As part of his YouTube video, Richard Dawkins claimed

Because most of the letters were written by Religious Fundamentalists, viewer discretion is advised.

Yet, as we have seen, Dawkins provides no evidence to support this truth claim. He expects everyone to accept it on faith. Those of us concerned about intellectually honesty, and willing to apply the principle of charity, will find it necessary to deflate Dawkins unsupported, strong claim and acknowledge instead it is merely plausible that most of those letters could have been sent by religious fundamentalists.

The problem is that is also plausible that most of those letters could have been sent by Poes – internet atheists who impersonate radical fundamentalist Christians in order to mock religious people. After all, we have seen there is a rather large community of such people who are quite addicted to such role-playing on the internet.

So we have two plausible explanations on the table. How do we choose?

To date, no one has come up with any reason to think the Poe explanation is implausible.

So let me move the ball and share two reasons to begin thinking Dawkins explanation is implausible.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, the emails are genuine. Much is made of the fact that they are hateful. Yet people are overlooking another aspect of these emails – whoever sent those emails has serious problems with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence construction.

Consider one letter that Dawkins read in his video:

I HATE YOU YOU DONT THINK GOD IS REAL BECAUSE YOUR GAY AND STUPID! WHY DONT YOU STOP BEING GAY AND STUPID AND GO HAVE SEXY TIME! I BET YOU HAVE SEX WITH MONKEYS CAUSE EVELOOTON SAYS SO! MISTER GAY AND STUPID!

In fact, the atheist “hate mails” so commonly have problems with spelling, grammar, and punctuation that one atheist organization published them in a book entitled, “To the Far Right Christian Hater … You Can Be a Good Speller or a Hater, But You Can’t Be Both.”

And it’s not just the serious, glaring problem with spelling, etc. The people sending the hate mail are incapable to formulating anything close to a real argument. They either make assertions, filled with name-calling, or make arguments that are so ridiculous it’s as if someone is playing a joke.

What I am saying here should be obvious: if those hate mails are genuine, the people sent them are profoundly uneducated. These would be individuals who have serious problems with spelling, don’t know how to put a proper sentence together, and who don’t know how to reason. They would be people who probably left school around the sixth grade. Uneducated. This point is undisputable.

So let’s move to the next point, a point I will make with a simple question:

How many deeply uneducated people even know who Richard Dawkins is?

Sorry, Richard, but you are simply not that famous and well-known. I would argue that Dawkins’ popularity is a function of being educated. That is, the less educated the person, the less likely they even know who Richard Dawkins is. Let’s face it – someone who thinks evolution is spelled evelooton is someone who is quite unlikely to know of Richard Dawkins.

Do you see the problem? To receive hate mail at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, we must assume the senders a) know who Dawkins is and b) know how to navigate the internet to find his organization and send an email. But people who are as ignorant and uneducated as the emails portray are among the least likely to a) know who Dawkins is and b) know how to navigate the internet to find his organization and send an email. How can someone send hate mail to Dawkins if they don’t even know who he is? Just how plausible is that?

So not only is there no evidence to support Dawkins truth claim, upon closer analysis, it is becoming incoherent.

And it gets worse.

The spelling errors, poor grammar, and persistant problems with punctuation and sentence construction exhibited by many of the emails indicate not only the person would be uneducated, but also that he/she does not read very much. For the simple act of consistent reading itself, over time, would be sufficient education to correct many of these problems – much of human learning occurs through mimicry. And the problem for Dawkins is that it would be difficult to make the case that religious fundamentalists don’t read very much. On the contrary, religious fundamentalists tend to read. They tend to read alot. In fact, the more religious they are, they more likely they will read often. They will read their Bibles, their Bible studies, their religious books, their devotions, their church bulletins, etc. GIven that the spelling, grammar, and sentence errors seen in the emails is inconsistent with someone who reads on a regular basis, Dawkins’ truth claim suffers another blow.

In summary, Dawkins truth claim is plagued with two serious inconsistencies. First, the spelling, grammar, and sentence problems, combined with the illogical nature of the letters, is evidence of a deeply uneducated state. But the deeply uneducated are among the least likely to know who Dawkins is, read anything he wrote, or be able to contact him. Second, the spelling, grammar, and sentence problems are inconsistent with someone who has much experience with reading and religious fundamentalists, as a group, tend to be readers. These inconsistencies suggest Dawkins truth claim is not plausible.

The Poe explanation, on the other hand, does not suffer from any such inconsistencies. A Poe is likely to know who Dawkins is and how to contact him. A Poe could easily pretend to not know how to spell or write a proper sentence as part of an effort to reinforce his/her negative stereotypes about religious people.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, New Atheism, Richard Dawkins and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Reasons to Doubt Dawkins “Hate Mail” was Genuine

  1. Allallt says:

    This I like. I don’t agree fully. But this is an argument.
    I would like to know whether it is true religious fundamentalists read more, and I think that in deeply religious communities it is possible that Dawkins would have an infamous status among people who haven’t read his work. I also think that the ad hominem attacks are consistent this hatred.
    I expect, from the context of the video, that the letters read are not representative of the ‘love letters’ he gets. It is possible that he had intentionally picked the bottom of the barrel, so your comments about education don’t hit that hard.

    I say this not to prove you wrong, but to add balance to the confidence (essentially reminding readers we’re talking about plausibility). But, I think you’ve made a good case for the Pie.

    There was another piece of evidence I hoped you might pick up on: the mistakes seem stylised. When I was a teacher, the true finger print of copycat students was the mistakes. There are very limited ways to be right, but huge numbers of ways to be wrong, so when 2 people make the same mistake, especially if they’re friends, you think “copycat”. (If more people make the mistake, it’s normally time to point the finger at the teacher.)
    That law of entropy applies here, too. The mistakes across the letters are very similar (and there is something suspect about “biatch” and “sexy time”) that suggests these authors are cut from the same ilk/mimicking the same source/have similar training/are only a few people writing similar letters.
    Now, a sincere group of people who are coordinated are self-correcting. This many mistakes makes it look like an insincere coordinated group.
    It gets better! The ‘love letter’ you quote seems to be warming up. Notice that the errors are standard at the start (no apostrophe etc) and get worse (evelooton) and more ignorant (sex with a monkey). It’s almost as if this is not the author’s natural writing style…
    The last thing I’ll say, in defence of Poes, is that the ‘sex with monkeys’ joke relies on a reasonably high understanding of evolution, suggesting the misunderstanding is also insincere.

    No longer in defence of Poes, but a question of Dawkins (or the foundation’s) sincerity: Dawkins is a humanist. This means he believes people basically make good decisions. (Obviously, this can be out of kilter because of mistaken or incomplete evidence or faulty reasoning.) But this stylised grammar (which is different from mistaken grammar) is not a good choice of one wants to be taken seriously. But it is a good choice for a Poe. You might not agree with the lenis that prior make good decisions, but Dawkins should.
    (I am going to get shit for this, I can tell.)
    The foundation still hasn’t replied.

  2. Allallt says:

    I really shouldn’t write long comments on my phone. Mistakes always happen. Most of the typos, I think, are easy for you to correct, but those last sentences should read:
    “But this stylised grammar (which is different from mistaken grammar) is not a good choice if one wants to be taken seriously. But it is a good choice for a Poe. You might not agree with the premise that people make good decisions, but Dawkins should.”

  3. Michael says:

    I say this not to prove you wrong, but to add balance to the confidence (essentially reminding readers we’re talking about plausibility). But, I think you’ve made a good case for the Pie.

    I agree. That balance was needed. Thank you.

  4. Billy Squibs says:

    (I am going to get shit for this, I can tell.)

    Why would this be?

    The foundation still hasn’t replied.

    Given that you are coming around to the idea that atheists aren’t above creating fake online accounts, I’d suggest you set up a few new email accounts and start spamming their inbox with requests for clarification.

    😛

  5. TFBW says:

    For me, one of the most implausible things about the hate-mail quoted in this post is the “go have sexy time” part. Seriously, what kind of fringe fundie is supposed to say this?

  6. TFBW says:

    Allallt said:

    Dawkins is a humanist. This means he believes people basically make good decisions.

    There’s a statement that needs to be surrounded by a wall of caveats. Given what he thinks of religion, and given the portion of the world’s population which professes some religion or other, it would be just as fair to say that he believes most people make bad, irrational decisions. On the other hand, it’s clear that he wants to think of people as basically smart and good: after all, it was originally he who invented the term “meme” in order to frame religious thinking as an abstract form of parasitism, analogous to a virus.

  7. Billy Squibs says:

    Sorry for my ignorance – but what exactly does “good” and bad” mean in the context of Secular Humanism and Dawkins?

  8. Kevin says:

    Sorry for my ignorance – but what exactly does “good” and bad” mean in the context of Secular Humanism and Dawkins?

    I wouldn’t even attempt to try and define Dawkins, since he seems at best rather infantile when it comes to philosophy.

    As far as Secular Humanism goes, I can to an extent respect a SH who says “Since there is no objective purpose to the universe or to life, there is not really any such thing as good and evil. However, my personal values are to seek those things that maximize human well-being and happiness, which is how I personally define ‘good’.”

    Problem is, you get Secular Humanists like Dawkins, who deny objective truth about life and the universe, but then turn around and take a theistic stand on morality by condemning, with full moral outrage, those who do things differently. I’m sorry, but if you deny objective purpose and objective moral truth, you have undercut your justification for moral outrage. No one has any obligation to share values with anyone else, if there is no objective moral truth.

    I would characterize this type of Secular Humanism as a philosophically self-defeating religion, espousing objective moral truths while denying there are objective moral truths.

  9. The idea that fundamentalists read a lot is pretty naive. At best, it only applies to a subset of them. Even evangelical academics complain about the widespread intellectual problems amongst conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists, their tendency towards extreme gullibility towards televangelists, towards health quacks who throw in some Bible verses, etc. All of this is apart from creationism — although, heck, I dare you to watch some Kent Hovind “lectures”, preferably one with a live audience. Then you can adjust your plausibility scale. Or, heck, read Kent Hovind’s Ph.D., and then observe that he spent decades successfully being “Dr. Dino” before fundamentalist audiences.

    Sure, some of the more ridiculous spelling/grammar issues could be Poes. And some of the material could be stuff scraped from the websites and discussion forums of crazy fundamentalists and forwarded to Dawkins’s website by atheists (which is slightly different than a straight-up email, but still indicates that The Crazy Exists).

    And then there’s this — the signs held up by creationists asking questions they themselves wrote, at the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate:

    http://twentytwowords.com/what-the-creationists-at-the-bill-nyeken-ham-debate-want-to-say-to-evolutionists-13-pics/

    E.g.: “How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?” (original spelling)

    Do you think this was made up by a Poe, Mike? Or is this a pretty average kind of thing that you would get out of a fundamentalist? Let’s have a straight answer please, since you’re so intent on holding other folks’ feet to the fire, it’s time for you to take part.

  10. toddes says:

    Nicholas,

    From your link: there are 22 questions of ~200 words with one spelling mistake for an error rate of ~0.005.

    From the Hate Mail referenced above: there are ~40 words with 5 spellings mistakes for an error rate of ~0.125.

    That means there are 25x more mistakes in the POE than in the whole of your linked example. I wonder, if we include additional letters, does the Hate Mail error rate increase or decrease?

    By the way the best question from those 22 creationists: “What about noetics?” (Shame about the intellectual vacuity of creationists).

  11. Michael says:

    Nick,

    First, you completely ignored one of the problems:

    To receive hate mail at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, we must assume the senders a) know who Dawkins is and b) know how to navigate the internet to find his organization and send an email. But people who are as ignorant and uneducated as the emails portray are among the least likely to a) know who Dawkins is and b) know how to navigate the internet to find his organization and send an email.

    Second, as for reading, you are missing the point. You write:

    The idea that fundamentalists read a lot is pretty naive. At best, it only applies to a subset of them. Even evangelical academics complain about the widespread intellectual problems amongst conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists, their tendency towards extreme gullibility towards televangelists, towards health quacks who throw in some Bible verses, etc. All of this is apart from creationism — although, heck, I dare you to watch some Kent Hovind “lectures”, preferably one with a live audience. Then you can adjust your plausibility scale. Or, heck, read Kent Hovind’s Ph.D., and then observe that he spent decades successfully being “Dr. Dino” before fundamentalist audiences.

    The plausibility scale does not need to be adjusted because we are talking about the reading level that is demonstrated in those emails. Nothing you offer gives us any reason to think religious fundamentalists would demonstrate spelling and grammar errors that are THAT bad. You need to focus on the data in questionthe actual emails that Richard Dawkins read on a YouTube video and portrayed as being sent from Religious Fundamentalists. Those emails demonstrate people who barely know how to read. We are talking about people who can barely read, not a lack of PhDs or people who deny evolution.

    Sure, some of the more ridiculous spelling/grammar issues could be Poes.

    We are beyond that level now. Pay attention to the email I posted above, one that was read aloud by Dawkins. Let’s try to account for its origin and get beyond the “could be” stage. I tentatively say Poe. You say?

    And some of the material could be stuff scraped from the websites and discussion forums of crazy fundamentalists and forwarded to Dawkins’s website by atheists (which is slightly different than a straight-up email, but still indicates that The Crazy Exists).

    Google would find that, Nick. I tried that in 2012.

    So what happens if we Google “evelooton?” You’ll get a total of 5 hits. One of them goes to Overview Guide – UniWiki for some unknown reason, as the word does not appear on the site. As for the other four? They ALL are citations of Dawkins site.

    NIck:

    And then there’s this — the signs held up by creationists asking questions they themselves wrote, at the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate: E.g.: “How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?” (original spelling)Do you think this was made up by a Poe, Mike? Or is this a pretty average kind of thing that you would get out of a fundamentalist? Let’s have a straight answer please, since you’re so intent on holding other folks’ feet to the fire, it’s time for you to take part.

    I do not think those are Poes. I think that group serves as a nice positive control that actually strengthens my case. If we focus solely on the textual evidence, considering spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence construction, the population holding up those signs looks quite different from the population who sent the “hate mails” that Dawkins read aloud.

    Toddes already initiated such an analysis: “there are 25x more mistakes in the POE than in the whole of your linked example.” But we can go further and score the severity of the mistakes. The one example that you cite is a very common mistake, one that we have all made at some time or another. In fact, it is only a mistake when viewed in the context of the sentence. The example I have noted – evelooton – is a mistake so rare that it looks unique. In fact, so unique it does not make sense, as Mike S pointed out:

    The email you cite is so obviously a troll. If the guy (girl?) is spelling in some phonetic manner, why the “TON” at the end? Why not “SHEN” or “SHUN”? Does anybody actually pronounce the word “e-vo-lu-ton”?

    Also, the error in the alleged hate mail is not context-dependent. It is a wrong spelling in any context.

    The error rate is not only much higher among the “hate mail” population than the Ken Ham followers, the errors are much more severe.

    Nick, you need to focus on the “hate mails” that Dawkins actually read aloud and promoted as being sent by religious fundamentalists. Those are the actual data in question. If those data are supposed to be genuine, then we can safely conclude the senders were deeply uneducated and people who very rarely read. And both of those solid inferences cause serious problems with Dawkins truth claim, not the Poe explanation.

  12. TFBW says:

    Nicholas J. Matzke said:

    … the signs held up by creationists asking questions they themselves wrote …

    (I’m going back to the primary source, not the secondary source you linked.)

    The grammar and spelling is near-perfect, there/their substitution being the common error (2/22 use “their” incorrectly; 2/22 use “there” correctly). This error is rather frequent in the population at large, however, so it’s of dubious significance.

    Nobody misspelled “evolution” (5/22 use it or a derivative word correctly).

    Only one wrote in ALL CAPS, and that was the “what about noetics?” question.

    None of them were hateful, abusive, or even uncivil.

    None of them mentioned sex in any way.

    The range of sophistication in the questions was quite varied (some are very challenging, some are FAQs with standard answers), but even the ones which demonstrate ignorance of evolution are still logical: e.g. “if we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?” The correct answer is to point out that the antecedent condition is false, so the question is void — a logical answer to a logical question. In other words, the worst questions demonstrate ignorance of evolution (and may contain false assumptions about the subject), but still demonstrate critical thinking.

    If this is our baseline for how fundamentalist creationists address public apologists for evolution (e.g. Nye, Dawkins), then the vast majority of Dawkins’ hate mail looks conspicuously caricatured.

  13. Michael says:

    (I am going to get shit for this, I can tell.)
    The foundation still hasn’t replied.

    Allallht,

    For whatever it is worth, you are one of the very few atheists that have earned my respect. I’ve previously accused you of being a closet Gnu atheist before and I wish to retract that.

    Did you hear from the foundation today?

  14. Dhay says:

    Nicholas J. Matzke > And some of the material could be stuff scraped from the websites and discussion forums of crazy fundamentalists and forwarded to Dawkins’s website by atheists

    No doubt you will wish to test and evidence your speculative hypothesis by seeking out and quoting examples of that fraudulently forwarded material — openly forwarded material appears at first glance to be absent, but please do correct me.

    I look forward to seeing example forwarded hate mails, with links to both the earliest appearance of each in the archived RDF mail and the corresponding earlier crazy fundamentalist website / discussion forum original source.

    You will of course need to take into account that the RDF hate mail dates (and hence any forwarded fake “hate mail” dates) are generally incorrect, progressively larger numbers of them having been periodically re-dated to a new notional “start date”, and not even kept in original date order. TFBW has kindly provided me with a useful link to previous snapshots of the RDF site, to help narrow down the mails’ genuine dates of first appearance, and you should find the link equally useful in your own research.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20061029160758/http://www.richarddawkins.net/theUgly

  15. Luis says:

    Hey Michael, sincere question: do you think this person is a Poe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-C0aZ3V1Q

  16. Michael says:

    No. I think this person is a Poe:

    I HATE YOU YOU DONT THINK GOD IS REAL BECAUSE YOUR GAY AND STUPID! WHY DONT YOU STOP BEING GAY AND STUPID AND GO HAVE SEXY TIME! I BET YOU HAVE SEX WITH MONKEYS CAUSE EVELOOTON SAYS SO! MISTER GAY AND STUPID!

    Hey Luis, sincere question: Do you think this person is a Poe?

  17. Yep the “Evelooton” post looks like a Poe. But another non-Poe showing the Actually Real Extreme Stupid and Crazy From Fundamentalists, this time about Katy Perry’s halftime show: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=30418 This kind of thing is quite common (and check out the comments – most find this ludicrous, but some are in support). Get someone like this mad about evolution, and sure, they’ll send quarter-baked, mostly illucid hate email.

    I just think a balanced treatment of this issue would also say forthrightly, “Yes, there is a great deal of crazy, thoroughly uneducated commentary on evolution from fundamentalists, some of it only marginally literate or of dubious lucidity. When such fundamentalists get mad about evolution, they produce some especially crazy material. The reality of this is not changed by occasional Poe-ing of such emails, which mostly exists as a commentary on the very real crazy stuff the fundamentalists produce.”

  18. TFBW says:

    Nicholas J. Matzke said:

    Get someone like this mad about evolution, and sure, they’ll send quarter-baked, mostly illucid hate email.

    Maybe. It’s a plausible story. Do you have any facts to back up that assertion, or do we have to accept it on plausibility alone? If it were true of someone such as given in your example, I might expect them to also publish some vitriol against evolution(ists) on their website. Do you have solid examples of that, or do we have to accept some properly-spelled, grammatically-correct fringe weirdness about the Illuminati as evidence that the person also produces poorly-spelled, grammatically-mangled hate mail about evolution? My research suggests that their coverage of evolution is nothing like what you imagine: here’s a recent evolution-related article they posted.

    … occasional Poe-ing of such emails …

    You’re suggesting that Poes are relatively rare in the typical corpus of published hate-mail? That’s not really any more plausible than any other assertion about the distribution of frequencies. Do you have any solid data to back up the assertion, or are you asking us to accept your judgement on some other grounds?

  19. Hmm. Just read the comments on the Pope/evolution story you linked to. There are a great many that are crazy-pants, although not quite “Evelooton”-level. Here’s one:

    ===========
    NO SURPRISE, AND DID PETER NOT SAY A DAY WITH THE LORD IS A THOUSAND YEARS??????? THE VATICAN NEVER BELIEVED THE WORD OF GOD..THEY ARE REVELATIONS BABYLON..DANIELS ONE WORLD RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THE ONLY ONES TO FULFILL DANIEL 7:25!!
    ===========

    Do you think this is an atheist or Catholic Poe-ing the anti-catholic/anti-evolution fundamentalists? Or is this an actual sincere human being?

    Just admit it, crazy, uneducated, marginally literate/marginally lucid stuff is *common* within Christian fundamentalists on the street, and on the internet. Why the resistance to admitting this simple fact?

  20. Poe, or real? Same thread:

    ===============
    Reed-Georgianna Haviland · Follow · Photographer at Reed Haviland Photography

    My God is Bigger than your God. With all due respect, true science leads more to Creationism than Evolution if we examine the known facts. The seven layers of time exist nowhere on earth in the same place. Fossilized leg and boot found in Texas proved the boot was made in 1948 which according to science would take thousands of years. A giraffe has a mechanism to control his blood pressure when he drinks otherwise the pressure would cause blood vessels in the brain to rupture. It goes on and on. Evolution, missing links have never been discovered between species. It is a theory fueled by fraud to obtain grant monies by atheists and shoved down children’s throats as fact..
    ===============

    Almost certainly real.

  21. And another:

    =============
    Randy Walters · Top Commenter · Niagara Falls, New York

    It’s obvious that Satan is at work here ……A thousand years is a Day with GOD …..The warns us about kustening to MANS ideas…..I like the Pope , but he missed on this one ..Believe the Bible or Suffer the consequences ..PERIOD !!!!!

    Reply · Like · Follow Post · October 29, 2014 at 11:07am
    =============

    Clearly, such people somehow figure out how to run web browsers and send messages…

  22. Wow.

    ==============
    Richard Gregory · Top Commenter · Trade Schools

    Seeing as we have no actual account of where we came from; I agree with Kent Hovind of “Creation Seminars” better known as “Dr Dino”
    This theory is the most possibhle.
    Go to DrDino.org click on the seminars. scroll to the different seminars; there were six last time I viewed them.

    Reply · Like · Follow Post · October 28, 2014 at 11:02am
    ==============

    ==============
    Clement Akuo · Follow · Greenbelt, Maryland

    Once this pope was elected i wrote a poem; The True Syllabus of Errors Rain, rain, raiding the pillar of Rome
    And behold! The Vatican will soon inundate…… Chills smear afoot the hallowed doctrine,
    Dogma maybe heading unstoppably to the guillotine. Everything i said is coming true. A strange things will happen with this man.

    Reply · Like · Follow Post · Edited · October 28, 2014 at 10:10am
    ==============

    ===============
    Carl Maquar · Top Commenter · School of Hard Knocks, The University of Life

    The false prophet is going to come out of the Roman Catholic Church and lead many into excepting the anti-christ, Revelation chapter 13, youtube Bro. Darrell Dumas “The Great Deception” video he explains it better than anybody does, if you want to know the truth then youtube his video its not long.

    Reply · Like · Follow Post · October 30, 2014 at 1:02pm
    ===============

    ===============
    Christo says:

    November 1, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    id rather listen to the bible than to the Catholic Monarch.. all men are liars and follow satan, the father.. of liars… and of thieves and murderers.. the Catholic false church killed millions in the dark ages in the name of evolution??.. why are the descendants of those killed.. (Jesus never killed or lied to anyone).. following the same beast of revelation?.. surely, we know the anti-christ???…
    ===============

    ===============
    His-Love Daycare says:
    October 27, 2014 at 8:30 pm
    Are you serious? Do you know silly, that God is gooder to me than that. Yes gooder, better. How ever the ___________ way you want to say it. I will not let you tell me, though that my deeds are as filthy rags and I am nothing without Him anyway.I will not, Let you tell me even with God forgive my sometimes sin. That I was created from pond scum. Nor will I let anyone tell me, that I’m from monkeysssssssss. He is much better to me than that. Come to think of it that sounds to me like ideas from deeds of filthy rags or someone who is nothing without Him. He tells me that He is creator and He created everything. Even evil. Read it for yourself. Go figure. He is everything. He is my everything. He says in Him we can live. His life, love, joy, forgiveness. I can do all things through Christ Jesus who strengthens me, me, you, me. The mind of Christ. For God has not given us a spirit of fear But of power and of Love and of sound mind. So much more and everything in Him. Father God open our eyes that we may see you and your word. And live our lives pleasing to you. Thank you Lord. In Jesus name. Halelujah!
    ================

    ===============
    Christo says:
    November 1, 2014 at 5:47 pm
    The theory of evolution is an ignostics explanation of the fall of man and the consequences that followed.. in the begining, the whole universe was created perfect by a perfect and sinless mind.. the mutations and immorality of humans and animals and depravity of nature all came after the fall.. thus, man and nature is in a constant state of mutations, or slow death.. this was explained by the term survival of the fittest which is a lie as God alone controls history and history is his story.. for Adam rebelled against Gods commands and so died.. there was no big bang.. God said.. it was done.. the all powerfull, holy creator , the king of kings, decreed light, when there was yet no moon nor sun nor star.. where or who was the light?.. God himself.. Jesus Christ.. he sustained, held together the universe by himself.. and later created the lesser lights from the moon,sun and stars.. the big bang theory implies a sexual connotation, implying that God had a wife and they had sex to produce the world, meaning Christ.. The bible says he spoke the world into existence not have sex.. God created sex for humans as something good for reproduction and pleasure.. God is God.. he has revealed himself in his Son Jesus.. if we would read the bible with an open and unbiased mind, we need not be so confused and so sinfull..
    ===============

    =============
    Heather says:
    October 28, 2014 at 6:20 am
    Pope Francis and his double minded babbel talk is straight from the synagogue of Satan!
    =============

    ==============
    Kim says:
    October 27, 2014 at 10:40 pm
    Anti-Christs, Christ meaning Salvation, are many these days, just as the bible says. They seek to prevent us all from having Salvation and we must be on the alert and not let any man take our salvation from us. The big bang theory is a lie because the rock could not come out of nothing and just magically appear in a location, namely space, which has no air nor anything else in it. Before we believe the evolutionists “theory” (theories are almost always unfounded and senseless) and that, obviously, God did not make a thing, we should consider that for the rock to exist, something had to make it. Soon, Jesus is going to return and put an end to those who are hating Jesus without cause. Pray for the enemy as we have all been commanded.
    ==============

    =============
    Lars Chiron Cheveyo Bohr says:
    October 28, 2014 at 3:16 am
    Paul was an anti Christ! His messages contradict the messages of Jesus and that is why he founded the Church which has never taught the true message of Jesus.

    Reply
    arcticfarmer says:
    October 27, 2014 at 11:26 pm
    Oh boy, not another false teacher!!!!!!!! Will they every stop promoting their lies??? I talked to some Satanic fool who held this theory a few months ago. I was street preaching in Port Townsend, WA when he approached me and told me not to use the epistles in preaching because they were written by Paul, and Paul was an “antichrist”. Lies.
    He also told me the only true scriptures are the “original” languages. Nope, wrong. The King James Bible is the true Word of God in English. Every other version was cooked up by Satan. In fact, I took my NRSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, and ESV that I had and burnt them. I will have nothing but the true Word of God in my house. Amen! Thank you Lord for your true word that can be trusted no matter what anyone says! (Hal Lindsey or otherwise).
    =============

    ==============
    Calvins Onyango says:
    October 28, 2014 at 8:06 am
    There is no point of argument about this-the BIBLE is getting fulfilled.if you want to enter(rapture) visit this website-www.repentandpreparetheway.org-you will know the truth and stop worrying about all these but instead prepare in haste for the coming of JESUS CHRIST TO RAPTURE HIS BRIDE!!!
    ==============

    Phew. I only got part way through but that’s quite a bit for one thread (which you picked!) I’d never seen before, from a website I’d never seen before. These are all almost certainly sincere comments — atheist Poes are not likely to imitate Protestant anti-catholicism, link to obscure prophecy websites, etc.

  23. TFBW says:

    These are all almost certainly sincere comments — atheist Poes are not likely to imitate Protestant anti-catholicism, link to obscure prophecy websites, etc.

    You’re not kidding, are you? You think there’s basically no trolling going on in that lot. That’s … informative.

    Okay, do you have a shred of hard evidence to back up your claims, or do we just have to take your word for it that you’re very good at picking sincere nuts from fake ones?

  24. Kevin says:

    I’m confused by that list, since very few of them were anything I would call hate speech. Does it matter if those are Poes or not?

  25. Michael says:

    Yep the “Evelooton” post looks like a Poe.

    So Dawkins passed off a Poe as the real thing. I thought he cared about truth.

    But another non-Poe showing the Actually Real Extreme Stupid and Crazy From Fundamentalists, this time about Katy Perry’s halftime show: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=30418 This kind of thing is quite common (and check out the comments – most find this ludicrous, but some are in support). Get someone like this mad about evolution, and sure, they’ll send quarter-baked, mostly illucid hate email.

    First, you linked to a web page with Ken Ham fans holding up signs. Since that blew up in your face, as it turned out to strengthen my claim, your confirmation bias leads you to another site.

    You first ask: “Do you think this is an atheist or Catholic Poe-ing the anti-catholic/anti-evolution fundamentalists? Or is this an actual sincere human being?”
    Er, that came from someone named “Kat Hooker.” Is a hyper-fundamentalist named Ms. Hooker an actual, sincere human being? You tell me. 😉

    After giving us a flood of other comments, you conclude:

    These are all almost certainly sincere comments — atheist Poes are not likely to imitate Protestant anti-catholicism, link to obscure prophecy websites, etc.

    My, my. Your confirmation bias has purchased certainty. So atheist Poes are not likely to imitate Protestant anti-catholicism, huh? Oddly enough, the Poes over at Landover Baptist don’t seem to know that:

    http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/catholics.html
    http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/dangcatholics.html

    Yes, Nick, there are plenty of kooky fundamentalists out there. Just as there are plenty of kooky non-fundamentalists and kooky secularists. But all of those are not relevant. The truth claim on the table is not about the existence of kooks. It is the one that was put there by Dr. Richard Dawkins. He claimed that most of the emails he read, the ones viewed 1.8 million times now, were from Religious Fundamentalists. How does he know that? Where is his evidence? For it is the very same Dawkins who preaches endlessly about the need to support our beliefs with evidence. It is the very same Dawkins who claims he has no faith, while mocking those who do as “faith-heads.”

    I just think a balanced treatment of this issue would also say forthrightly, “Yes, there is a great deal of crazy, thoroughly uneducated commentary on evolution from fundamentalists, some of it only marginally literate or of dubious lucidity. When such fundamentalists get mad about evolution, they produce some especially crazy material. The reality of this is not changed by occasional Poe-ing of such emails, which mostly exists as a commentary on the very real crazy stuff the fundamentalists produce.”

    No, I am providing the balanced treatment. Dawkins made a truth claim and refuses to provide evidence for his claim. People like you, all over the internet, cheer lead his antics. I am the one who says, “Not so fast there people…..how do we know most of those came from Religious Fundamentalists? Ever hear of a Poe?” Someone has to speak up for critical thinking, so it may as well be me.

    Your idea of balance is to justify the means with the ends, all while portraying deception (Poes) as “occasional” and justified. If reality is as bad as you say Nick, you don’t need to help it along with deception. As for the empty assertion of Poe-ing being occasional, I see you have ignored TFBW’s question. You also ignore the reality of hundreds of people over at the Landover Baptist church playing the Poe-role thousands of times on their forum alone.

  26. Charlie 2n says:

    Nick, I’m confused; are you saying that you’re certain those are all legit letters?
    I’m always a bit amazed where and when you decide to allow yourself to be more credulous.
    And there’s really little mystery as to why and when you allow credulity to usurp the seat you save for the image of skepticism in your response towards others.

  27. So now you guys seem to be promoting the theory that Poes are basically as common as actual crazy fundamentalists, and they are so numerous and so active that they are hunting down and targeting even this particular anti-Pope/anti-evolution article that was more or less randomly selected from the thousands of such articles that might have been chosen from fundamentalist/prophecy websites. And not just one Poe, but a bunch of them, some of them so dedicated that they have become listed as frequent commentators.

    C’mon, be reasonable and admit it, as a general matter, actual crazy fundamentalists far outnumber Poes. This is precisely why Poes succeed when they do — because the real fundamentalists are so bizarre and so unbelievable and so common. Which of course is the origin of Poe’s Law in the first place.

    Random other points:

    My opinion of Poes — They are hilarious, for multiple reasons. They keep skeptics on their toes (or not), and they are an amazingly piercing commentary on the sheer insanity of fundamentalism. And they give Mike Gene et al. an amazing way to distract themselves from huge, crushing, troubling issues such as the amazing frequency of shocking, jaw-dropping crazypants material coming from a large swath of fundamentalism/conservative evangelicalism. This self-distraction is achieved by nitpicking a couple bits of what is basically New Atheist comedy for sample ascertainment problems that mostly actually stem from the unbelievable-but-true craziness of actual fundamentalists.

    Kat Hooker — You failed to note that “Hooker” is a reasonably common name. Famous ones include a Civil War general (the origin of the disreputable connotation, iirc) and Darwin’s botanist friend. And: https://www.facebook.com/kat.hooker.3?fref=nf If that’s a Poe, that’s quite a lot of dedication. There may be a hundred or more posts in just the last few days. Perhaps you could hypothesize a BotPoe, but I don’t think that technology exists. My money is on fundamentalist off their meds.

    Mike Gene: “No, I am providing the balanced treatment. Dawkins made a truth claim and refuses to provide evidence for his claim.”

    You make it sound like Dawkins has made a conscious decision and deliberately refused to provide you personally with the (basically impossible) documentation you require. C’mon, exercise your critical thinking. He’s a celebrity, he’s got a million things going on, probably all that happened is some Dawkins fans scraped some of “hate mail” material accumulated on the website and stuck it in front of him for a filming, since the last video awhile back was such a hit — it’s not even an attempt at a scholarly analysis. I can sort of imagine attempting a scholarly analysis and trying to rate each bit of hate mail for “real vs. Poe” status, but what would be the result? All one can really do is identify the most obvious Poes based on things like spelling mistakes so ludicrous they are not likely even from the most confused fundamentalist, and for the rest all you can say is that it looks like a sample from the general population of mostly real fundamentalist crazypants stuff, with Poeing a minor component. The existence of a stupendous amount of real fundamentalist crazy is something that everyone except you guys (and, I guess, the fundamentalists) already knows to be obvious and worrisome and thus worthy of parody and mockery. Yes, the organizers of the video, and Dawkins himself, should have spent 5 minutes weeding out the most obvious Poes, and thinking a little bit about the selection process, but even if they had, the end result would not have been hugely different: same basic stuff, some basic (and legitimate) point.

    I suppose one could get super-worked up over the sentiment that “The Dawkins ‘hate-mail’ collection depicts crazy fundamentalist spelling abilities as sometimes mind-boggling atrocious, but actually the reality is that those are Poes, and actual crazy fundamentalist spelling abilities are just bad.” If that floats your boat, great, but don’t expect the rest of us to stop alerting your attention to the elephant in the room of society here. The elephant in the room is the massive amount of fundamentalist crazypants out there in the society. You guys are picking fleas off the elephant. Congrats, but it’s reasonable to be much more concerned about the elephant.

  28. Michael says:

    Nick, that’s quite the inefficient use of words. It took you 713 words to say something that could have been said with only six: Truth doesn’t matter, evidence doesn’t matter.

    I get it Nick – new atheists are not sincere when they claim beliefs need to be supported with evidence. They are “faith-heads” just like the rest of humanity (except they are “faith-heads” who mock other people for being “faith-heads”). The ends justify the means.

  29. TFBW says:

    Nicholas J. Matzke said:

    C’mon, be reasonable and admit it, as a general matter, actual crazy fundamentalists far outnumber Poes.

    What’s the ratio? How did you measure? I’ve asked this numerous times in numerous ways, and you’ve avoided the question. The fact is, you don’t have any data: you are just asserting what you believe to be true without data to back it up. You be reasonable: don’t ask us to believe your assertions when they are based on nothing but your personal (and extremely biased in this case) intuition. You would demand no less of us.

    This is precisely why Poes succeed when they do — because the real fundamentalists are so bizarre and so unbelievable and so common.

    I think a great deal of the truth of Poe’s law can be attributed to the fact that many anti-theists have such a strong, negatively stereotyped view of fundamentalists. It’s almost impossible to overact the part such that an anti-theist of this sort will see through the ruse.

    You make it sound like Dawkins has made a conscious decision and deliberately refused to provide you personally with the (basically impossible) documentation you require.

    No, he’s just failed to live up to the kinds of demands he places on everyone else with regards to good and bad reasons for believing things. He’s a tremendous hypocrite like that. If he evidence really is impossible to obtain, well then, shock horror, science has limits, and he should just admit it and offer the caveat that he can’t tell if they’re fake or real. Of course, that would undermine the whole point of the propaganda exercise, so I’m not holding my breath while I wait for Dawkins to start living by his own standards.

  30. Charlie 2n says:

    Nick,
    My point is just that you are very selective with your skepticism.
    With all of the hoax crimes that seem to happen regularly I’d just think you’d be a bit more wary.
    There’s even numerous websites dedicated to keeping track of the ‘cries of ‘WOLF!”‘.
    http://fakehatecrimes.org/

    So, it doesn’t strike me as being beyond the pale of possibility that something even more innocuous could be faked for personal gain, certainly not for a groups’ ideological gain.

    People can easily fake stuff like this. Just like how well known internet atheist philosopher Blue Devil Knight faked another persona of Zach, the hopeless liberal Christian who just couldn’t wrap his head around the credulity of his ‘fellow’ believers:
    http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/2013/10/phosphorus-and-hesperus-zach-and-blue.html

    So yeah….it’s clear, for me, that this is all a charade on your part.
    You post those and act like you’re certain they’re legit.
    Rife with the same ‘unintentional’ spelling mistakes that are on photoshopped pictures where a supposed dubious Christian is holding up a sign that says “Keep God in our Children’s Edukasion”.

  31. Dhay says:

    Nicholas J. Matzke > ”… Katy Perry’s halftime show …”

    I see you are determined to avoid examining Richard Dawkins’ hate mails, which are the topic of this post and of its responses; likewise, determined not to substantiate your claim that, “some of the material could be stuff scraped from the websites and discussion forums of crazy fundamentalists and forwarded to Dawkins’s website by atheists” by providing evidence that “forwarding” has actually occurred – has occurred even once.

    Oddly, while you have provided evidence of a crazy fundamentalist website, you have not provided evidence of hate mail, such as Dawkins received, either in the post about Katy Perry itself, or in the responses thereto. I see some predicting Hell for Perry if she does not change her ways, but unless I’ve missed it, nobody wishes her there. Mostly, the commenters criticise the post, or laugh at it, among them a large proportion of Christians.

    There is a hate mailer, though; he wants to burn Christians; he’s a Christopher Mangin, who’s at face value an atheist, though he’s possibly a Poe, and he’s quite definitely a troll; his responses so far include:

    as an i idiot stfu? your this problem,extremist need to be called out.fuck xtian sharia,be a christian

    i was held in a church till i became born again,now i want to burn christians and churches,together saves time but i will do a one on one thing

    sad you have a family,death to stupidity

    The site owner, a Geoffrey Grider, seems to be genuine, though I wonder why contributions to his “sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ around the world” mission are “not tax deductible.” (In Britain, that would be a charitable purpose.) I see his posts attract large numbers of views, and comments, and includes a lot of advertising (unlike Shadow to Light, note), so he will presumably be generating well above average amounts of advertising revenue.

    A sideways thought I have on that is that you don’t just, as the idiom has it, get what you pay for, you will get whatever you are prepared to fund – such as that website, directly by donation or indirectly by views.

    For all that the website appears to one that genuinely reflects its owner’s fringe views, there’s a lot of commenters who ask directly if it’s a Poe site, or say it could easily be an Onion article, or say something like, “I love this website. If it’s satirical, it’s brilliant. If it’s real, it’s even better as its inadvertently become one of the best satirical religion sites around.”

    One thing this shows is how difficult it is to distinguish the real thing from a Poe, and a Poe from the real thing. Odd, then, that Richard Dawkins can be so certain about what is or is not a Poe, or is or is not the real thing, when I can’t, you can’t, and many of the multitude of commenters at that NTEB website can’t.

    I rather think the NTEB ”… Katy Perry’s halftime show …” post you presented as evidence of Christian hate mailers does not remotely make your point.

  32. Dhay says:

    Nicholas J. Matzke > Phew. I only got part way through but that’s quite a bit for one thread

    In this second NTEB post and its comments, there’s but a single hate mail, when a Mark Smith makes a single three-word comment, calling the Pope a “Satan cock sucker.” Well, that is vaguely like the Richard Dawkins hate mail, if somewhat more terse than Dawkins ever gets; but the rest is quite polite – especially when you realise that for many or most of those who call the Pope the anti-Christ, that is not meant to be so much a term of abuse as what they perceive to be arguably correct opinion or objective fact.

    > NO SURPRISE, AND DID PETER NOT …

    This is “crazy-pants” to me, too, likewise the other comments you quoted. But with that single Mark Smith exception, there’s a marked absence of the abuse that is found in the Dawkins hate mail. There is thus a marked lack of evidence that any of these commenters, or any “crazy-pants” like them, have sent the very different hate mails to Dawkins.

    You do not produce evidence of abusive hate mailers by pointing out people who are “crazy-pants”.

  33. Dhay says:

    Nicholas J. Matzke > C’mon, exercise your critical thinking. He’s a celebrity, he’s got a million things going on, probably all that happened is some Dawkins fans scraped some of “hate mail” material accumulated on the website and stuck it in front of him for a filming, since the last video awhile back was such a hit

    C’mon, exercise your critical thinking. Richard Dawkins’ RDF staff stuck it in front of him for a filming, since the last video awhile back was such a hit. And they will have done so because asked them to do so.

    > Dawkins himself, should have spent 5 minutes weeding out the most obvious Poes, and thinking a little bit about the selection process

    Dawkins or his staff should have spent your “5 minutes weeding out the most obvious Poes”, but didn’t. Truth doesn’t matter, evidence doesn’t matter.

  34. Michael says:

    So now you guys seem to be promoting the theory that Poes are basically as common as actual crazy fundamentalists,

    Why are you always trying to create straw men to argue against? No one is promoting any such theory. We simply observe that Poes are common enough to merit skepticism concerning Dawkins’s truth claim. Even though you have been forced to concede that at least one of those “hate mails” was likely a Poe, do you want us to abandon all skepticism regarding the rest?

    C’mon, be reasonable and admit it, as a general matter, actual crazy fundamentalists far outnumber Poes.

    You keep taking your eye off the truth claim and the actual “hate mails” in question. Reasonable people will not take the ham-handed approach you seem to have in mind, but will consider the content of those emails and ask: Are there more Poes than Religious fundamentalists that would call Dawkins a “cunt”? Are there more Poes than Religious fundamentalists that would express glee at Dawkins being raped by “satanic monkeys in hell?” At this point, we could bring in some independent evidence of a community of atheists sending hate mails where they call the recipient a “cunt” and make rape threats.

    This is precisely why Poes succeed when they do — because the real fundamentalists are so bizarre and so unbelievable and so common.

    Poe’s usually succeed because atheists are so gullible. The Poe’s feed their confirmation bias and enslavement to stereotypes. Yes, there are crazypants fundamentalists, but Poes usually like to take it to the next level (and the good ones make that step subtle) and atheists, wanting religious people to look, and be, as stupid and hateful as possible, are blind to this.

    You make it sound like Dawkins has made a conscious decision and deliberatelyblind to refused to provide you personally with the (basically impossible) documentation you require.

    You are confused. It is Dawkins’ own words that bring that requirement online. He is the one who has preached for years about the need to support beliefs with evidence. He is the one who has mocked and scorned faith for years. His own rhetoric and his own posture are what bring the requirement into existence. If the man is not sincere and honest when he talks about reason, evidence, and faith, that would explain his recent publicity stunt.

    C’mon, exercise your critical thinking. He’s a celebrity, he’s got a million things going on, probably all that happened is some Dawkins fans scraped some of “hate mail” material accumulated on the website and stuck it in front of him for a filming, since the last video awhile back was such a hit — it’s not even an attempt at a scholarly analysis.

    Dawkins et al. are not capable of such a scholarly analysis. And it’s not because of the crazypants things he tweets. It’s because he is an activist with an agenda.

    The picture you paint of Dawkins is that of one gullible man. People he trusts (as he once trusted Josh T. before the embezzlement accusations) put something in front of him and he reads it for the camera. He is quite the “faith-head,” that Dawkins. The man who preaches about evidence reads a Poe letter and thinks it’s real.

    I can sort of imagine attempting a scholarly analysis and trying to rate each bit of hate mail for “real vs. Poe” status, but what would be the result?

    Getting us closer to the truth. But for Dawkins, truth doesn’t matter and evidence doesn’t matter.

    All one can really do is identify the most obvious Poes based on things like spelling mistakes so ludicrous they are not likely even from the most confused fundamentalist, and for the rest all you can say is that it looks like a sample from the general population of mostly real fundamentalist crazypants stuff, with Poeing a minor component.

    All one can do?

    First, Dawkins didn’t even do that. He couldn’t be bothered. That alone would have raised many red flags.

    Second, you keep ignoring the argument of my blog entry. The genuine status of those emails is linked to another trait – uneducated. So can you look for clues that the person is not truly as uneducated as the grammar, spelling ,and sentence construction imply. And the clue might not be in the text. For one example, check the IP address. If it comes from a proxy, it’s a Poe. Someone so uneducated that they can’t spell and use a spell-checker is not going to figure out how to send emails via proxy.

    Here’s where we stand thus far.

    There is nothing implausible about my Poe explanation and, in fact, there is consensus that at least one “hate mail” was a Poe.

    There is no evidence that most of those “hate mails” were sent by Religious fundamentalists. In fact, that hypothesis is plagued by the two serious problems I mentioned above.

    Perhaps we should turn to some more of those “hate mails” Dawkins read.

  35. Matt Brown says:

    Lawrence Krauss was caught lying about the Vilenkin email when debating with William Lane Craig, why should we think Dawkins would be any better? Great article.

  36. Dhay says:

    Hemant Mehta of the ‘Friendly Atheist’ blog has just (September 6, 2015) blogged “Stop Taking @kimdavis917 Seriously. It’s a Troll Account. Here’s How We Know”. He gives various reasons why we can know the twitter account is a trolling fake, including certain proof in the form of a statement by Kim Davis’ solicitors, and her tweeted signature not matching the wedding certificate; but he also gives various circumstantial reasons why we can know the tweets are troll tweets, and these reasons are interesting because they apply equally to many of Richard Dawkins’ ‘Ugly’ section hate mails and to those read out in Dawkins’ two infamous propaganda videos.

    3) The capitalized words and misspellings throughout the account’s timeline are the hallmarks of what you’d do if you were trying to imitate a Christian fundamentalist. In other words, it’s *too* error-filled to be accurate.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/09/06/stop-taking-kimdavis917-seriously-its-a-troll-account-heres-how-we-know/

    Doesn’t this just apply in spades to Dawkins’ allegedly Christian hate-mails. “EVELOOTON”, anyone, and that the very tip of the iceberg. Why can Michael and I can see why capitalized words and misspelling flags up trolls, Mehta can see why (and declares that) they flag up trolls, but Dawkins and his staff cannot see that. I suggest they can see it, but are simply dishonest.

    6) There’s this tweet:
    ISIS kills homosexuals. Which would you prefer????
    — Kim Davis (@kimdavis917) September 3, 2015

    Too far. Remember: People like her *love* gay people. They just oppose their rights.

    Now just review Dawkins’ allegedly Christian hate-mails, and see for yourself how many contain accusations, explicit or implicit, that Dawkins is homosexual — “gay”, “faggot”, “sodomy”, “make love to monkeys”, and “suck Chomsky’s dick” — and expressing explicit or implicit anti-homosexual hate.

    Why can Michael and I can see why anti-homosexual hate flags up trolls, Mehta can see why (and declares that) it flags up trolls, but Dawkins and his staff cannot see that. I suggest they can see it, but are simply dishonest.

  37. Michael says:

    I’ll bet Nick Matzke thought the kimdavis917 account was legit. LOL

    Oh, and why can’t Mehta see the Dawkins’s “mail video” as a bunch of Poes/trolls?

  38. Dhay says:

    An example of a Poe “Ugly” hate-mail “letter” has just (December 2015) been sent to Michael here at Shadow To Light, likely on behalf of or by the just-banned responder, Atheist Max:

    Shame on Atheist Max the fool of all fools! He is a demon! He is a godless heathen who needs to have Satan take him to the darkness of the underworld. May Christ crush his soul and break his spirit and tame his vile beguiling tongue. DETESTABLE MAX!!! You are wrong Max. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!! HOW DARE YOU CHALLENGE THE GLORY OF THE LORD ALMIGHTY WHO SHALL NOT BE MOCKED!!!! SHALL – NOT – BE – MOCKED!!!
    Oh, Atheist max heathen of the heathen nation fall to your knees and beg, beg, BEG FOR FORGIVENESS MAX!!!

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/4-dawkins-admits-nothing-can-persuade-him-god-exists/#comment-10708

    It’s a cat-call, a jeer, a laughing sneer. It’s a pretend-Christian “letter” which is obviously a jeering parody from a vehemently anti-Christian atheist.

    Yet if you substitute “Richard Dawkins” for “Atheist Max”, you have something indistinguishable from much of Dawkins’ allegedly Christian allegedly anti-Dawkins hate-mail. That is, the atheist anti-Christian hate “letter” which Michael has just received looks just like many of the supposedly Christian anti-Dawkins hate “letters”.

    So, which of Dawkins’ hate “letters” is genuinely anti-Dawkins, and which of them follow the Atheist Max response’s modus operandi of notionally being anti- the named subject but actually anti- pretended sender, ie anti-Christian. Can you tell whether Dawkins’ “letters” should be assessed at their anti-Dawkins face-value; or are many actually anti-Christian?

    Well, in some cases, yes, clearly some can be identified as obvious atheist Poe “letters”, as I have pointed out in other responses; can you successfully analyse hence identify with any certainty what each of the others are?

  39. Dhay says:

    The previous response quoted AtheistMax providing a jeering parody pretend-Christian “letter” to Michael, which looks very like some of those “Ugly” letters which Richard Dawkins and staff claim were sent by Christians.

    I note that when you click to [Show More] on this YouTube video of a 2016 Street Epistemology lecture by SE leader Anthony Magnabosco, he gives “Special thanks to my friends Julian Franklin and Joe Anderson (@science4joe) who helped me conceptualize many of the points covered in this talk.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeADDe-ggmk

    This might, or it might not be, the same Joe Anderson who was trolling Christians as an utterly rabid atheist ten years ago. Whether it is, or isn’t, is irrelevant to my real point here, which is: just look at the similarities between the 2006 Joe Anderson “letters” to a Christian site and the Dawkins “Ugly” letters:

    Religion is a Product of man, IT IS PROVENT THE EARTH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR BILLION, yes BILLIONS of years and there has been many different type of florishing spiecies,Christ , GOD or whatever you want to call him or her, is a fictional character, And hopefully one day Religion Will end and the human race will evolve into it’s next stage. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYTHING IS UNIVERSAL, The universe is doing somthing huge, and in our lifetime we will never understand it simply because or human brains can never comprehend it. JESUS IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER AND HIS CHARACTER HAS RUIENED EVERYTHING WE HAVE TRIED TO ACOMPLISH IN THE HUMAN RACE. You are A ZOMBIE sir, Trapped in a Lie that will have you beliveing until your dead, This message alone will never be enough to convice you, But Maby thats a envious thing that you will live in a world of bliss based on how you were raised. HAVE FUN WITH YOUR FANTASY

    … then …

    PLEASE, your acting like I came up with Evolution, Do your resaerch Moron, Evolution is no longer a theory it is a FACt. I Have no Problem Saying “[expletive deleted] GOD , [expletive deleted] JESUS CHRIST IN THE [expletive deleted].SO [expletive deleted] U and [expletive deleted] Your Religion, Because no matter how much u belive your fantasy the true beggings will be revealed in the future when Religion (christianity, Catholics, Jews or Whatever) will be proven to be a product of man, Im sorry sir but RELIGION IS THE THEORY, All You Have is A Bible that YOU SIR HAVE NO PROVE OF IT’s ORIGIN, So DONT TELL ME ABOUT PROOF, MANY SCIENTIST HAVE STUDIED FO MANY YEARS TO FIGURE OUT HOW LIFE WORKS ON THIS PLANET, YET YOU WILL BELIVE A MAN NAMED WHATEVER, WILL SAY JEBADIA, A STARVING BUM WHO HAD NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE THE ENVIRONMENT OR THE WORLD, He probobly believed a comet was a God coming to earth, OHHH lets sacrifice a coww… I DON’T BELIVE IN GOD BUT I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I BELIVE IN. I believe in world Peace, Ending Hunger, I am A good person in Life and i will not burn in a so called hell, if this caring person burns in hell just because they had facts to belive otherwise, THEN GOD IS AN EVIL ENTITY, EVIL. this is the last message i will send because like i said before SIR you are a Zombie And nothing I say Will Convince you otherwise, As much so as I will never be convinced. GOOD DAY HAVE A GOOD LIFE BELIVING IN A EVIL GOD THAT WILL BURN GOOD LOVING PEOPLE FOR USING THEIR BRAINS… PS. [expletive deleted]

    … then …

    YOU ARE A PIECE OF [expletive deleted]

    http://www.allanturner.com/ALetterFromJoe.html

    Not that Joe Anderson (2006) was a one-off troll in this style; the site owner’s introduction includes:

    … It is not that his rants are different or less blustery than many others I receive from atheists/evolutionists/materialists, only that his bluster so typifies the content of his ilk that I have decided to record his and my remarks here in the dialogue section. …

    Got that, “many others“.

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