Pearce’s Potshots #40: Manure-Comments on His Blog

Pearce’s Potshots #40: Manure-Comments on His Blog July 10, 2021

Matthew 5:11-12 (RSV) Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. [12] Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Luke 6:26 Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

John 15:18-20 If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. [19] If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. [20] Remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.

Jonathan MS Pearce’s blog, A Tippling Philosopher has no ostensible rules of conduct, so virtually anything goes, and it is open season on Christians. To be fair, Jonathan has at least feebly opined that he would like more civil discussion to occur in his environs (though he appears not to ever enforce such a notion). On 5-19-21 he wrote the post, “Another Comment Appeal” which included the following:

The comment threads here . . . could be more productive and civil.

I would like polite and civil discourse. . . .

Please please simply deal with the ideas and do no[t] attack the person. . . . we should be convincing people to our frame of mind. If they are not ready, attacking their personality forcefully and without civility will not work in our favour. . . .

[L]et’s ALL think about the way we interact, who we are appealing to, who we think our audience is, and why we say what we say in the way we say it.

I already responded to this on 5-20-21. I had documented a “feeding frenzy” against me on his blog in a post dated 3-18-21; also a wholesale massive attack that took place on fellow anti-theist atheist Bob Seidensticker’s blog, in August 2018.

Pearce has written several recent posts wholly in response to me, or predominantly so. This has brought out (as always) the long fangs and the slanderers in his comboxes. I would like to document just a small sampling of these (no more than 10%, if that) of some of the worst from three comment threads, underneath the articles Chiasms, Multiple Sources, Armstrong, and Chasms in Rationality (7-7-21), Debunking the Genesis Flood I (7-4-21): below the ten asterisks; also a few more (bonus) from Ruddy Flood Thing Again. And Armstrong. (7-3-21): underneath the ten plus signs.

Still wanna be an apologist, and particularly to atheists? This is what it’s like. In-between this constant avalanche of worthless insults, a good conversation here or there can be had. But any anti-theist atheist forum (at least any I have ever seen, and that is 24 years of constant interaction online as an apologist) will end up like this if you dare to disagree as a Christian, and especially if you dare to forbid such slander on your own blog, as I do, and (horror of horrors!) ban foul-mouthed, acidic folks. Then you will be lied about and attacked like you never have been in your life.


AtticusOSullivan you pathetic excuse for a human being.

no one gives enough of a s#@t about you to despise you, Dave.

Neko what Dave is saying is not Catholicism.

Can’t take the fundie out [of] the convert.

3lemenope you openly profess believing things as ridiculous as young earth creationism [never have in my life]

Nobody owes you anything but a snort and a laugh of derision.

Lark62 You are a disgusting, dishonest, contemptable [sic] flaming a%$&@#e.

. . . flaming hypocrite, given your consistent record of misrepresenting the words of others.

Beau Quilter Armstrong’s . . . perfectly happy to engage in all other prejudices.

John Grove You are a bigot, Dave.

Omnicrom You are really good at running away Dave . . . You make obnoxious, hypocritical tone arguments like nobody’s business.

JMallett Damn dude, seek professional help.

Freethinker your ignorance is bottomless, Dave


HairyEyedBombThrower More sleazy click farming, Dave? . . . You’re shameless.

. . . sniveling wretch who imputes to others your own worst qualities, a la Goebbels [a high-level Nazi]

You suppress anybody who disagrees with you [I suppress anyone on my blog, rather, who can’t bring themselves to be civil and non-insulting. Thus, dozens of anti-theist-type atheists have been banned on my blog. Not my problem]

WCB . . . dishonesty and unwillingness to debate fairly.

You won’t try to have a reasoned discussion with knowledgeable atheists because you lose those debates [see for yourself how well I fared in hundreds of such encounters]

We cannot expect reason, and rational, critical thinking from you.

Ignorant Amos You’re a liar.

You’re lying you shameless scumbag.

Neko You censor people who tell you the truth about yourself.

Beau Quilter We already knew you don’t “believe” in science. That much is obvious.

Omnicrom He’s been breaking the commandment against false witness for 25 years now.


BensNewlogin I think you are not very sincere . . . you’re calling your god a liar.

Clearly, Dave believes in astrology. And magic.

Omnicrom You lie all the time.

Neko he’s a vainglorious windbag, so to hell with him.


I said that I had left Jonathan’s forum and “moved on” in May, but alas, I got drawn in when he wrote several posts that I responded to, and he counter-responded to. At first I would simply post notice of my reply. But people would start responding, and I’d get drawn in again. It’s clear now, however, that the only wise and prudent course is to totally ignore these atheist forum cesspools of fanatical hatred against any and all Christians who dare to dissent and make arguments disbelieved by the Faithful Believer-Atheists.

The few who are capable of sustaining a rational, civil, non-insulting discussion (and there are some, however few; every rule has its exceptions) can always come to my blog, where we engage in normal discourse.

I had been even more definite about leaving a month before, on Jonathan’s page, writing:

You claimed that you were actually happy I commented here, so that it wouldn’t be an “echo chamber.” But after being the target of 9,614,376 insults (which don’t faze me at all and only embarrass those who make them), and becoming sick and tired of the endless verbal diarrhea and mud pie fights, I decided at length that I am through with this stinking cesspool of a “forum.”
Serious discussion across differing viewpoints (with only very rare exceptions) does not occur in the toxic environment that is present here and in every atheist forum I have ever seen in 24 years of active online participation.
Here and there, one can accidentally stumble across pockets of rationality and cordiality even in this noxious manure-laden mud field, but it’s so rare that it ain’t worth the trouble anymore: so I have decided. My patience with it (even though it is often a source of high comedy or comic relief) is now exhausted.
Things will proceed as they always have. . . . I’m through here.

Jonathan specifically asked a month after that for “polite and civil discourse” and urged his minions of rabid followers to “simply deal with the ideas and do not attack the person.” They do so, anyway, and (here’s the thing) he does nothing about it.

This time I need to go cold turkey and never visit these pathetic places again. I will likely keep critiquing Jonathan’s posts, (and potentially any public atheist post, if it is a topic worth devoting time to), but I won’t visit the toxic, noxious comboxes there anymore: not even to notify Jonathan — in courtesy — of a reply. Even then (if I merely do that) I get accused by several clowns of cynically, unethically “using” Jonathan to get more clicks on my blog (as we saw in at least one attack above).
This is a ridiculous assertion that I have dealt with before. Apart from the pitiful remuneration I get from pageviews, people on my blog don’t care all that much about atheism and its never-ending attacks on Christianity and Christians, and writing about it has never drawn big numbers to my page (or many at all). In other words, I have no self-interest in going to atheist forums and trying to rationally interact, and I get a ton of misery from the nattering nabobs who are nearly ubiquitous there. I go because I am trying to reach even the hardest and most hardened cases of non-believers (and silent observers who are everywhere as well).
In the end, there are other relevant Bible passages that would guide such a decision (after we gave it a shot):
Matthew 10:14 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. [14] And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.
2 Timothy 2:23 Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
Titus 3:9 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.
As always, anyone is welcome to visit my blog and comment, provided they are civil and charitable and interested in dialogue, not merely preaching or condemning. I continue to meet the rare atheist or agnostic who is willing and able to do this, and when it happens, we have great discussions, such as my recent lengthy and thoroughly enjoyable exchange with “axelbeingcivil” on the problem of evil and “problem of good” [see part I and part II].
Photo credit: Jan Tik [Flickr / CC by 2.0 license]
Summary:  I expose the “manure-comments” that regularly occur on atheist Jonathan Pearce’s blog comboxes at my expense. He has denounced them, but the offenders never stop shoveling the . . .
"Well, one thing about Pope Francis, he seems to give as good as he gets. ..."

How Dare Pope Francis Defend the ..."
""Science is the only tool we have for understanding reality" is perhaps one of the ..."

Brief Exchange with Atheists (Including Archaeology)
"You're the one missing my point. He cannot and will not do so. No pope ..."

Reply to Fr. Thomas Weinandy: Pope ..."
"You're both missing my point. Under the structure of the Catholic Church's system of authority, ..."

Reply to Fr. Thomas Weinandy: Pope ..."

Browse Our Archives