Tuesday, 5 April 2011

Clay Stewart, Liar for Christ!

Again I find myself writing about the Facebook page “Atheism, Satanism and Humanism vs Biblical Christianity”. This time we're looking at Clay Stewart, one of the admin on that page, and his recent behaviour.

Clay is, to put it mildly, completely hatstand. This is a man for whom the word sanity was most definitely not invented. He boasted recently that, should there be another Crusades, he would proudly take up arms and kill for his God. So, he doesn't value human life and that says a whole lot about what he is like as a man. How ignorant of reality is he though? Read on!

In a recent discussion board debate he attempted to debunk the KT Event which killed the vast majority of dinosaurs. Science, based on multiple disciplines, places this event around 65 million years ago. Clay doesn't believe this, but how to refute it? He cited, and this is priceless, that it could not have happened that long ago as they have found mammoths buried in ice that still have flesh attached to their remains. Just go back and read that bit again. Mammoths. Yes, that famous dinosaur, the mammoth. Slight problem with this argument; mammoths aren't dinosaurs, they're mammals and we know they died out around 4,000BC, so only about 65millions years later than the dinosaurs then! If you don't know the difference between a mammoth and a dinosaur you really do need to do some research before attempting to debunk anything.

He has, over the months, made similarly inane attempts to debunk evolution, the Big Bang (or 'big whopper' as he calls it to amuse himself) and other scientific areas of study. The problem is that Clay never cites sources for any of the information he uses in doing this. His arguments are from ignorance, incredulity and arrogance – he cannot be wrong! Why? Because the Bible tells him what happened and, as we know, the Bible is a really reliable source of scientific information lol.

Yesterday, however, Clay stepped rather too far from the path of just being an idiot into the land of LaLa where he managed to trip over a bullshit bunny and fall flat on his stupid face, by lying about me.

In a discussion about the expanding universe, Clay was asked about 'red shift'. For those that are unaware of this field of astronomy, let me briefly explain;

You know how a police siren rises in pitch as it approaches you and then decreases in pitch as it recedes into the distance again? That is the doppler effect and it applies to lightwaves, too. When we examine light from a star or galaxy we can see whether it is moving away or towards us by how the light is shifted either towards the red end of the spectrum if the object is moving away or towards the blue end if it is moving towards us. Using this technique they have found, conclusively, that the universe is expanding, objects moving away from a common point.

So, what did Clay have to say about red shift? Initially he didn't know what it was, and couldn't be bothered to fire up Google either, so had to have it explained to him. Upon reading what it was, he dismissed it instantly as untrue and unscientific. When asked why, he said it was impossible. Any reason it was impossible, any links cited to any scientific material supporting this? No, because he argues from incredulity, nothing more. If he doesn't understand it then it can't be true.

Clay then said we cannot see light when it's moving away from us, taking the explanation out of context entirely. I explained that isn't what we were saying. I then tried to give an example. I said if I were holding a flashlight pointed at him and then walked backwards away from him, keeping the flashlight pointed in his direction he would still see the flashlight. Now, to me that is a perfectly elementary explanation. Not to Clay. He responded that you can only see light when it is reflected, not otherwise. Huh? Okay, what planet was this on again? I suggested he light a candle and look at the flame, the light from that is not reflected yet he can see it!

He got it into his head that I meant you can see light that is moving away from you, which I clearly didn't. I tried, in vain, to explain that you can see the light coming from a light emitter as the emitter moves away from you. It didn't sink in with Clay, hardly surprising so, being ever the optimist, I attempted to explain again, this time asking, “Clay, can you see the tail lights of a car that is moving away from you? Yes or No?”. He refused to answer. I asked it again, again he refused to answer.

The conversation went on this way with him later twisting the conversation away from that, doubtless because he dare not answer, to such things as god being required for the laws of the universe and so on. He is a master of what we call the Gish Gallop where, instead of continuing a debate topic you are losing, you switch topic to something else. This would work were he to ever switch to a topic he had any knowledge of, instead you just end up talking him into a different corner until he gallops onto yet another topic.

Not wanting to give up, I foolishly attempted to explain the difference between light and a light emitter again. If the emitter is moving away from you but still sending light in your direction you can see the emitter! What did I get for my troubles? Clay came back with;

Steve - unless you have something to post that's related to the topic - and is not some Hill Billy half socked statement - I would sugest you go do some research and learn some thing before you post!

I lost my rag with him at this point, I have no shame in admitting that as I had had enough of this stupid little man wasting everybody's time with his ignorance and arrogance. Shortly after this, I went to bed.

Today I visit the site to see the following thread had been started by Clay Stewart.

Ok! Let's discuss light! For some reason Steve thinks he is superman - and can see light moving away from him!

At no point had I said this yet here was Clay, in my absence, mocking me! There was me, an atheist, thinking “Thou shalt not bear false witness” meant something to these people! The hypocrisy from the theists on that page is laughable.

When confronted, he insisted I had said it. He was challenged, both by me and several others, to find where it had been said, to quote it or, better still, screencap and post it. He would not do so for obvious reasons. Several people tackled on him on this issue repeatedly, and still he refused to relent.

Did Clay at any point provide evidence for what he claimed I'd said? No. He couldn't as I hadn't! Did Clay apologise? No. He doesn't apologise, he feels no need to as God will forgive him, apparently. This stupidity went on, and on, and on, and on … rather pathetic, given he had only to retract the accusation.

It was only many hours later, with Clay constantly avoiding and twisting, and not being allowed to, that he offered an apology, if you can call it that;

Look Stevy boy - if I miss understood - I apologize! Your still a dork!

At no point did Clay have the human decency to admit he had misrepresented me, taking what I said out of context and offer an apology. “I'm sorry, Steve, I got it wrong.” - that is all it would have taken. Clay, however, has too much hubris to admit he was wrong. Does the Bible not say something about that too?

‎"A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit."
Proverbs 29:23

Yes, this is a Christian saying these things about me. Or, more precisely, an Orthodox Roman Catholic. Ironically, he has frequently attacked the Catholic Church as it officially accepts evolution! You wonder why I despise fundamental religiosity? Oh, but Clay claims he isn't a fundamental, either. No, he just believes the Bible is literal truth, he would kill in its name. So, the difference is!?

He claims that God spoke to him, so he knows he is real. The problem here, aside the delusional psychosis it indicates, is that I have previously attempted to corner him by asking him to offer good reason his god is real but no others. He couldn't. He didn't even try that hard. One thing he did say was interesting though; I asked him how he knew if his god was male or female. His reply was that he didn't know, I would have to ask them. You would think, would you not, that a man as devoutly religious as Clay would know what gender their god was, especially if they have spoken to them!

Actually, backtracking to the subject of evolution, Clay can be so amusing. He recently claimed that Natural Selection isn't true, it's unscientific. Everything that disagrees with the Bible is unscientific apparently. But wait, Clay does accept 'adaptation' in species. He fully acknowledges that species can adapt to their environment, but states that is not Natural Selection. When asked why, we are told .. yup, you guessed it, Natural Selection is unscientific and impossible.

I asked him to explain how adaptation works. He wouldn't, he asked me if I knew what Natural Selection was. I replied I did, did he, could he please explain how adaption works on a biological level? To which he said that adaptation happens but no species can turn into another species *facepalm*

Again, Clay made no attempt to explain on a biological level, as requested, how his accepted adaptation works. None whatsoever, instead he confused Natural Selection with speciation, a separate issue – though it is like arguing that you can build a wall brick by brick but if you continue adding bricks you'll never turn it into a house. I even went to the trouble of finding a video on YouTube, “Natural Selection Made Easy” but did Clay watch it? Highly doubtful, he certainly made no comment below the post.

Clay, again, demonstrates that he cannot, and will not, provide any evidence for anything he says. He has not, to my knowledge anyway, ever posted a link to an external source to validate anything he says. This is not good debating practice at the best of times but when one is being given links left, right and centre and you are still making schoolboy errors there is something very, very wrong.


When another admin attempted to mediate, urging Clay to apologize for the sake of peace, he attacked her for her being a Protestant, saying, "if your a Protestant - I don't think you could help. What I need is a couple Orthodox and may be a Roman - to clean up this Hord! At lest they understand the bible is truth- and not a myth. They can prove it to scientifically! They would not take their crap either." Yes, Clay attacks other admin for being of a different sect of Christianity. Inter-denominational bigotry, gotta love it!

Clay then thought he would try to be clever. This never ends well. He told this other admin to watch, then asked me, "Stevy baby - what do you think of abortion?". Feeding his attention grabbing, I replied and told him as I have documented elsewhere on this blog; whilst I do not personally like the thought of abortion, I do not consider it my right to dictate to others what they can and cannot do. I pointed out that making abortion illegal would merely serve to force it back underground, where it once was, and lead to women seeking help from unqualified backstreet abortionists that would ultimate end in both the woman and baby suffering unnecessarily. I also pointed out, citing my sources unlike Clay, that in the US it is found that atheists seek far fewer abortions than those claiming to be either Protestant or Catholic.

Clay's reply? "So you think that abortion is Ok?"

Where had I said this? I had said I didn't like the idea but, realistically, they are going to happen regardless and surely it is better that if they are going to happen that they are undertaken by qualified doctors in sanitary conditions. How is this saying it is "Ok"? I'm a pragmatist, that is all.

Clay's response when I pointed this out?

"Steve - to say it's ok to butcher kids - is morally wrong! Period!! there is no excuse for it!! Period! However, to point scripture at me like "thou shalt not bear false witness" when you think butchering unborn kid is just fine - you are one sick puppy! Secondly - satan is the acuser of the bretheren . And that is where you got the from. My point is the others are acusing me of saying I am putting words in your mouth! If I did that I am sorry! And I apologize!"

When did I say it was ok to butcher kids? I didn't, again he is misrepresenting me. Calling me "one sick puppy" is crass hypocrisy coming from a man who boasts he would kill in his god's name were there another Crusades. Which one of us comes out of this morally superior; he who acknowledges the reality of the situation and would only wish to make good a bad situation, as with abortions, or he who would murder those of another religion, which is basically all the Crusades were, in the name of a god for which there is absolutely no evidence?

He ends that post with an apology for putting words in my mouth, then makes a complete lie of this by, in the very next post, asking

"So let me ask you point blank - did you or did you not post - that you can see light that's traveling away from you?"

Again I explained that, no, I had not said that and he knew this already. His reply?

"Well Steve - if that is true I am sorry! My comment about abortion was to high light your morals! Nothing more!"

Look at the logic of what Clay has just done. He has been caught lying and called on it. He has refused point blank to offer and apology and when forced to he has done so only when including an insult. Further pressure and instead of apologizing he attempts to discredit me on a moral level by changing the subject to abortion. When this fails, as I offered a reasoned response, he gives a scant apology only to negate it completely with his subsequent posts.

After this, Clay went back to arguing that red shift is not possible, it's unscientific, blah-de-blah, without actually offering any scientifically valid arguments to support his case. So, business as usual lol

End of Addition

There was a time that I had some respect for Clay Stewart. He's as thick as pigshit, sure, and as crazy as a box of frogs, no doubt about it, but he tries. Not very hard, no, but he does try, unlike the other admin on that page.

Kim Balogh, the page creator, is a worthless gobshite who seldom, if ever, progresses past offering scriptural quotes that don't necessarily have any bearing on the topic. She also changes the rules of the page when one of her admin breaks them so as to not have to admonish or otherwise act like a competent page owner. A ludicrous woman on every level.

Nyles Seru I have covered elsewhere on this blog. He is the vile little 'fanatical' Christian who acted so Christian as to invade my personal Facebook wall and refuse to leave until I changed my privacy settings. As I type this, Nyles has returned to their page and it doing what he always does, goad and bait people without offering anything of substance. He is utterly pathetic and a poor example of a human being.

Clay was different. Clay would enter into debates and at least attempt to offer something of substance. On that page, even arguments from ignorant, arguments from incredulity or arguments from arrogance are welcome when the other theists cannot even offer that much between them. His behaviour during this latest incident, where he misrepresented me, lied constantly and then, incredulously, attacked another admin because she is a Protestant and he isn't, just leads me to the conclusion that Clay Stewart is a very, very misguided and delusion man with some severe psychological issues. A real man would have acknowledged their mistake and apologized. I would have accepted the apology and then it would have been ended, I'd no desire for it to continue as it did. No, the only apology I did get came with an insult included and so hardly counts. So, stuff it, I'll just humiliate the vile little man here instead.

Clay, if you ever read this, for all you have said and done, I don't hate you. I pity you. I pity the life you lead. One of self imposed ignorance where you dismiss anything that may contradict your Bible, a book born of a bygone age when people knew nothing of advanced sciences. I pity that you will live your life arrogantly ignoring so much reality has to offer. I pity you because you have abdicated your Earthly morality, where you would be expected to apologize to those you slight, in favour of a fictitious God who will forgive you. I hope, though not that much I admit, that you never behave this way in person because you will one day come across somebody who doesn't just humiliate you on the internet, I'm also a pacifist, the next one you abuse may not be.

Clay, most of all I pity you for being you. I couldn't live my life that way.

If anybody reading this feels like would like to visit the page “Atheism, Satanism and Humanism vs Biblical Christianity”, if only for the shits n' giggles, I shall save you the bother of searching Facebook for it.

Just make sure your privacy settings are tight, otherwise you might get infested with their admin!


  1. Addendum:

    It's the next night and still Clay Stewart is refusing to accept that redshift is possible. This is because he appears to be refusing to read any of the many links to scientific evidence proving it does.

    When I suggested all he needed to do was Google for information, see he was wrong and then maybe apologize to everybody, I got this reply;

    "Steve - don't push it!"

    Clay da big man, he um talk tough, he um bang club and jump up and down on internet. If you didn't laugh you'd scream!

  2. This gets better. Instead of answering the question of redshift, Clay is now posting jokes about atheists. Well, I say jokes, here they are:

    "Here is another one - the Atheist version - In the beginning the was nothing - that exploded!!!! HAAAAAA HA HAAAA!@"

    "Why did the atheist throw her watch out the window?
    She wanted to see if it was designed intelligently enough to evolve into a bird."

    Then there was a youtube video of jokes about atheists.

    Avoidance tactics anyone?

  3. He's now quotes a bunch of crap copy/pasted from a creationist site, written by Dr. Donald B. DeYoung.

    Did any of it have any bearing on red shift? No, other than it denies the universe is expanding!

  4. I like to think Clay does actually mean well. Iget the feeling that he's probably a Family Guy, maybe a crazy uncle who all the kids love.

    But increasingly I'm feeling he's just a cock!


Feed the primate some of your wisdom here: