A Brief Response to Atheist Rosa Rubicondior’s Conspiracy Theory
Conspiracy theories abound amongst atheists in the UK. Take as one example Rosa Rubicondor, a woman who describes herself as a “centre-left atheist humanist.” Rosa Rubicondior is a fundamentalist atheist whose Internet presence is dedicated almost exclusively to spewing vitriolic absurdities toward Christians. Today she tweeted at Choosing Hats to ask, “Still routinely deleting answers from #Atheists so u can claim they aren’t posting any?” (https://mobile.twitter.com/RosaRubicondior/status/149173040746475520)
Rosa’s question is, of course, loaded. Her question assumes that Choosing Hats deletes answers from atheists, does so on a routine basis, and does so in order to claim that atheists have not posted any answers. Rosa’s assumptions are just laughable. Anyone who looks around on the site for even two minutes can plainly see that there are loads of comments from atheists. You can trust me, I know, because the other contributors and I have spent hours responding to them. But you need not take my word for it. Go have a look. For example, there is this post from Brian Knapp – https://choosinghats.org/2011/07/the-athiests-burden-of-proof/. Not only does that post have almost 100 comments on it now, but Rosa’s is one of them. Yeah, Rosa Rubicondior. The same Rosa who is constantly crying foul concerning atheist comments at Choosing Hats. She provides this link – http://yfrog.com/kii1vgagj in her tweet above. The link goes to an image that shows her comment awaiting moderation. In that comment she is already accusing us of some sort of conspiracy against atheist comments:
Rosa Rubicondior October 1, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Apparently you delete comments to this effect, but here goes again, in the perhaps forlorn hope that you’ve discovered a modicum of honesty:
Atheism is nothing more than acceptance that there is no evidential reason to be anything else.
Since theists such as yourself are making the positive claim that there is indeed a reason to believe in whatever god you are advocating, the onus of poof is firmly with you. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to make an unsubstantiated claim of fact and then challenge other people to disprove your claim with the implication that otherwise it’s true.
Besides, aren’t Christians forbidden from bearing false witness or is this permitted if you don’t have any evidence you can use?
Now if you look down in the comments on Brian’s post that I linked to above you will see that the comment Rosa is whining about has been posted on our blog for months – https://choosinghats.org/2011/07/the-athiests-burden-of-proof/#comment-2784. Yes, the same comment she links to in her tweet. People have even responded to it.
So Rosa is either blatantly lying, or she was too lazy to keep a check on her comment after she posted it. Either way, her conspiracy theory has been debunked, and she can go back to insulting other people in lieu of actually thinking through the topics she writes about.
Pleased to see you’ve at last found the moral courage and integrity to allow your readers to read the reply I posted all those months ago.
Or was it just the embarrassment and shame of being exposed as frauds which produced the change of mind?
It’s been there for months. I’ve told you multiple times that this comment was there, had been replied to, and you were as immune to logical demonstration as ever. Next, you’ll be tweeting that we deleted this comment, too, like you’ve been tweeting for months that we deleted the last one. What amazing ignorance.
No kidding. Middle November dude:
[She] replied to this one: https://twitter.com/RazorsKiss/status/135512243168231424
https://twitter.com/RazorsKiss/status/135523112476356608 <--- Your reasoning must be too complicated RK. (re: https://twitter.com/RosaRubicondior/status/135522644031315968)
And of course this: https://twitter.com/RazorsKiss/status/135522348672614401 where she didn’t even submit it but claims it was deleted.
She knows her comment was responded too long ago but still claims it was deleted. It is amazing how people cannot read the https://choosinghats.org/site-rules/. I don’t think they are that complicated.
In your haste to post your pecksniffian remark you forgot it was demonstrated that you are in fact lying. I realize that you are a bitter, hateful, unthinking woman, but do stop and ask yourself why you find it necessary to fabricate such monstrous absurdities in an effort to defend your blind atheistic faith. You are no longer fooling anybody but yourself.
It’s amazing how atheists, in particular, but people in general will stare something straight in the face and then deny what they are seeing. They will then lie about it and accuse others of a conspiracy to make up things. I would like to say its willful deception, but I think it’s blinded self-deception.
[…] on A Brief Response to Atheist Rosa Rubicondior’s Conspiracy TheoryRosa Rubicondior on A Brief Response to Atheist Rosa Rubicondior’s Conspiracy Theory“Theology is Piffle” – Paul S. Jenkins on Debate on God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the […]
A minor note: a comment that has not been approved, which is invisible, can be linked to — I don’t know if it can be seen if specifically cited, but it can be seen. It’s possible that this is the confusion. Simply pointing out a link exists is not evidence that the comment was not kept in moderation/deletion.
(I don’t know the details of the specific case, but I’ve been confused by this one in the past, when pointing people who are not regular readers to comments I’ve made, including some that have sat in moderation for extended periods.)
[…] in BrowserTell a friend Recent CommentsPeter on Always Ready Study : Parts 1-5C.L. Bolt on A Brief Response to Atheist Rosa Rubicondior’s Conspiracy TheoryRosa Rubicondior Unsuccessfully Tries to Save Face on A Brief Response to Atheist Rosa […]
Leave a Comment