oh and this is his profile statement on his blogging site:

"Frank has demonstrated unprecedented mastery at scalding refutations, hasn't he? He really leaves all the other apologists in the dust. How does he do it?" from atheist Dawson Bethrick (May 15, 2006 7:31 PM)

I think...he's lost in his own ego.

he also makes it so that people cannot leave comments on his site. Smells like fear of a real debate to me...hmmm....

what's worse than a theist?

An egotistical thiest who's afraid to debate but who builds himself a temple of narcism.

Knowing the guy in question, his arguments are so weak and childish, at this point I don't give him the time of day. Having him attempt a rebuttal to something you wrote is the highest form of flattery. It is a feeble attempt to ridicule that which makes abundantly more sense than his belief system. His dishonest response is his coping mechanism to try and deal with the inadequacies of his untenable beliefs.

What's going on Sapient and LeftofLarry? Good to hear from you guys. Here's my response:
http://atheismsucks.THISLINKWILLNOTBESHOWNONTHISSITE.com

[mod note: Frank, if you want to have a discussion with us, have it with us. If you want to link people to your site from our site, you can pay us for ad space.]

This is what LeftofLarry is talking about, my reply:
http://atheismsucks.THISLINKWILLNOTBESHOWNONTHISSITE.com

[mod note: Frank, if you want to have a discussion with us, have it with us. If you want to link people to your site from our site, you can pay us for ad space.]

MODERATOR COMMENTS:
"AtheismSucks" is named Frank Walton. LeftofLarry recently responded to Franks ad hom attack of Larry in a blog of his own.

Frank recently responded to 4 items on our forum by making a post on his blog that you can't post at unless you register, and he deletes your comments if he doesn't like them. (he's deleted tons of comments in the past)

Frank is an ad hom king and a liar. A shining example of Christianity, note the love in his name "atheismsucks."

Evidence of lying here. He represented himself as "Uponthisrock" and claimed to have found someone elses blog, when in reality it was his.

We will not allow Frank to link to his site from our site, enforcing an InfidelGuy.com policy. See here.

We are tempted to ban him however he deserves a fresh start should he choose to accept it, we would be glad to allow him to post here. FRANK, that means, post HERE. This will be your last warning, DO NOT link your site again.

What's the harm of people checking out my blog? *SIGH* Oh, well. But you didn't have to lie about me being "Uponthisrock."

No harm in that. Where did I say there was? And you're preaching a need for honesty?

I didn't.

Well, all I could say is at least Christians (like Gene Cook and DeeDee Warren) leave links in their blogs and forums - even to opposing websites.

You're using Gene Cook as an example? Jesus Christ. His claim to fame is incessant banning of people who conquer his arguments and show him to be the dishonest man he is. You can't even view posts on his forum unless you register!

Hi Brian,

Yes.

Where?

That's not true. You know, I've noticed something about you Brian. Dude, you have a lot of anger in you. You have to calm down, and just relax, my friend. You (or whoever) were probably banned because you were being like an out of control, immature little brat with a potty mouth.

That's not true. I'd prove it if you guys would let me put links, but go ahead and go to the unchained website and press forum and you'll see the posts without having to register.

Hope that helps,

Frank

Frank Walton is an angry troll, lashing out at reality, because it refuses to match his ignorant fantasies.

You might enjoy this:

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-399177-.html#399177

Here, Frankie, Man-boy, Walton declares that "barker says that rape could be moral'. He then goes on to hold that rape is "always wrong' in the bible....

Watch him get spanked both for the disengenuous implications behind his complaint against Barker and for his clearly false claim about the bible.....

Hi Todangst, that forum was actually fun to read. Thanks for linking to it. But yes, it still stands, Barker thinks that rape can be moral.

Yes it is. This thread will soon prove it.

You're projecting. I am not angry at Gene for not having integrity, he's free to lack integrity if he chooses. It doesn't bother me at all.

I'm calm as can be man. You're projecting.

I never signed up at his forum as I don't want my IP linked to my name on his site. I don't trust him. Again, you're projecting. You my friend are the "immature little brat" with a screenname like "atheismsucks."

I stand corrected. However as recently as two weeks ago, I was unable to view his forums without being registered. And you're dishonesty rears it head again. Nobody told you that you can't post links, we told you you can't post links to your site. Stop being an "immature little brat" and face reality.

Here is the link to the newly unprivatized Gene Cook forums:
http://www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums

But only given the context... if the 'rape' were able to help prevent an even more immoral act.

You dishonestly leave that part out, even as it's pointed out for you over and over in that thread! So you lie, even after your lie has been exposed.

Pretty stupid, considering that everyone here is going to go and read it!

What I really enjoyed is how you even used the concept of 'context' to defend actions in the bible... which means you relied on the same methods Barker used.... making for a particularly humorous self refutation.... (do you have any other type of argument?)

Barker is not saying "rape is ok if you want to destroy a people" or 'rape is ok if there are no other men around to have a baby with". - the sort of "context' the bible uses to 'justify rape'. He's not giving such a flimsy context. Barker is saying something different... he's saying that there could potentially be some extreme context where rape is not the immoral choice... but only in some extreme cases: an example would be where the act saves multiple lives.

So not only is your implication about Barker disengenuous, you end up using his own argument - based on context, in a much, much weaker fashion, to defend your bible!

And finally, you're clearly and obviously wrong that the bible holds that 'rape' is always wrong. This is demonstrated several times in the thread you ran off from.

'God' supports rape here:

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. (20:10-11)
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Brian, isn't its amazing how he continues to lie, even when the evidence is right in front of him?

Soon prove it? I already disproved it a long time ago - I'd let you know about it but you wouldn't let me put in a link of mine. Oh, well.

Are you sure? Because you seem awfully insecure.

Not really. I'm quite composed.

Well, I don't really trust you either but at least I have the guts to sign up on your site.

If you think about it, Brian, it isn't immature, because atheism does suck. It cheapens life.

Indeed.

Well, as we've seen that isn't the case anymore.

I have and it seems that you guys are trying to find a way of "legitimately" banning me from this site, let alone you don't want me to post in these blogs. But I'm not going anywhere, Brian. I'm staying right here.

Great then you shouldn't mind if I put this link in:

http://www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=14408#14408

Thanks again, my friend,

Frank

Yes. As a psychologist, do you think that I'm justified in thinking this is a coping mechanism for him? Has anyone ever analazyed Frank that you are aware of to hold any serious mental conditions (other than theism)?

Yup I'm sure. You're still projecting.

I never said you weren't composed. I said you were "projecting."

And theism sucks, but I'm mature enough to not hold it as my screen name. You however are not.

My whim or the whim of other mods is legitimacy enough. We don't need any specific reason. For you, the reason for your banning will be, that you are deceitful in your posts and trick people dishonestly into holding your position, forcing RRS to spend too much time debunking your drivel. Hopefully someone else will spend the time on you so that the core RRS members can work in other, much more important areas. If debunking your incessant dishonesty becomes too much of a hassle, you're likely to disappear from these forums. We don't have the time for the "immature" games, you choose to play.

I don't mind at all, I don't mind Gene being linked. Gene is twice the man you are, and he still has almost no integrity. (says a lot about you)

Really? But I'm very secure, Brian. Honestly.

LOL, then I am composed and calm because you said I was projecting you when I told you to calm down. Thanks!

Personally, I think it's a matter of having the guts to have an in-your-face username like mine. And having guts is a very mature thing.

Aw, so if I have someone who agrees with me about a refutation on you guys it necessarily has to be a dishonest tactic on my part, right? I think that's an unfair way of seeing it. Someone may agree with me and find my position reasonable enough to hold, thus they'll hold my position. Honestly, your quote seems like a way of preempting anybody from paying attention to my posts here. That's quite dishonest.

You don't have to respond to me if you don't want to, Brian. Nobody is forcing you to.

You mean, you'll ban me for just responding? That's unfair. You guys could just ignore what I say if you want.

Well, not everything I say is immature, Brian. So far, I've been cooperative in responding to the blogs and the blogs only. I haven't made this argument about me like what you guys are doing. LOL, talk about ad hominem.

Anyway, I'm still staying here. And yes, I'll still be responding and linking.

You should steer clear of referring to yourself as honest. Nobody with half a brain, buys it.

One might argue that kids who are immature often have loads more guts than adults. You get "guts" at birth. Keep in mind you're talking to a man who points out that "theism is a mental disorder" and as you can see above receives death threats on a near daily basis. I got guts Frank, I'm just more mature about how I use them.

No, I never said that. And insinuating it was once again dishonest. You're great at the dishonesty game, really it's mind blowing how easily you do it over and over and over and over.

Notice, your question was a strawman, and then you answered it yourself, completing the logically fallacious act.

You really should stay away from saying that you're being honest about anything. However in this case you were actually right. Any reader of my blog deserves to know that virtually nothing you say deserves any credit.

On the contrary, it's the most honest thing I can do, to expose your lies over and over.

I force myself. I like readers of my blog, or threads I participate in to know the background behind bullshit when it gets spewed. Unfortunatly, not all of the readers here know your history. Considering this, it's important I refute your lies as you post them.

Where did I say that? See how dishonest you are? You even used another strawman. You asked a question only to answer it yourself with the wrong answer.

No. We leave the "ignoring" up to you. You ignore reality, we'll embrace it. The reality is you're a dishonest man posting on my blog, I'll debunk it.

Agreed, I never said it was. Once again, your insinuation was dishonest. Please stop making me sound like a broken record.

I never said your participation on this site was limited to the blogs. You're not "cooperating" by participating here only. In fact as Amber pointed out in her blog, you are bothering her in her blog and would better be suited for the forum.

This might be the most ironic argument you've made so far. You just insinuated that I've used ad hom, might dishonest of you. Now, while you insinuated that I used ad hom, you actually made an ad hominem attack yourself. "Making an argument about me" is not an ad hom attack as you seem to claim. However attacking someone for making an argument about them rather than attacking the argument, IS an ad hom attack, which is exactly what you just did.

Good for you. Maybe you can link your readers to these blogs, so people can see you being exposed for your dishonesty. Or maybe you'll selectively pretend as if the posts exposing your dishonesty, don't exist. And don't count on you staying here, your stay here is not likely to last long at this rate.

He's basically a dishonest person..... he lies about people like Barker, and even when his lies are exposed, he continues the lie.... this shows me that he also has very little self awareness.

Then again, it's not all that hard to determine that a guy calling himself 'atheismsucks' who complains about rudeness has very little self awareness.

So I'd say that his main mode of defense is simply denial... he lies and then denies it, even when caught. He asserts something ridiculous, and then runs from the refutation.

He won't deal with anything here that refutes him... he can't.. because all he can do is deny.

In the thread I've linked to, we pointed out that Barker was actually arguing that the moral nature of an act could change given the context.

What is so ironic is that our DENIAL loving friend argued this

And as another poster responded:

And it does. Because the passage in question holds that the potential rape of Lot's daughters is preferable than angel's being raped.. meaning that our clueless friend USED THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT BARKER DID - that this action's nature would change, given the context!

Except of course, this 'justification' hardly works.... I don't think having your daughter raped to save 'two angels' would be justification enough to make rape moral..

But this is precisely what the bible says:

Gen 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 He said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the square." 3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

The men of Sodom were going to gang rape two angels, but Lot offered his two virgin daughters to the men in order to save the angels. 2 Peter 2:7 says that Lot was "righteous" when Yahweh saved him from the destruction of Sodom...

2Pe 2:7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the lawless

Therefore, according to the Bible, Lot was "righteous" when he offered his daughters to be gang raped, and thus the Bible permits rape in certain contexts.

**********************

This is the same argument Barker used... that context changes the nature of an act. So not only does our clueless friend refute himself through his own citation, he's not even able to see it!

So he not only endorses Barker's own views... he endorses it even when the justification is extremely weak - whereas Barker only said it was potentially good, given an incredible circumstance, such as saving multiple lives...

The fact that Frank Walton can't see this just proves, yet again, that he deals with difficult parts of reality through denial.

This sort of self refutation is what happens when you use denial as your main method of dealing with the world.

And here he is., months later, still unable to see it, still dodging the key points.....

It's painful to see...

Frank doesn't seem to know what projecting is.

"Projecting' has to do with denying away your own flaws and putting them onto others... so you would feel quite composed as you projected out your anxiety onto others....

Notice how Frank uses context to reevaluate the moral tenor of an action! This guy just loves to contradict himself!

Anyway, keeping with the current exchange.... this is just another projection from frank. It is theism that clearly cheapens life.... it says our works matter not... it says our time here is inconsequential... it says we are worthless - only 'saved' by 'grace'!

Going around calling yourself 'atheismsucks' is immature, no matter how you try to defend it....

Another projection... these closed minded theists deal with difficult posts by banning people... so he places his own guilty conscious onto others...

Good. I call your posts "target practice"

As I said... evidence was forthcoming. Here are stories from people who were banned from unchained radio after demolishing Genes arguments. Like you wanting people to come to your blog so you can delete comments that destroy your arguments, Gene removes anyone who pwns him.

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopic-22198-days0-orderasc-0.html

wow...all this action, while I've been away...

Frank, glad you could join us. It seems as if my blog must have ruffled some feather to have caused such a vehement, albeit, illogical reply from you on your blog. I'm glad, however, that you were able to come on here to defend your attacks, and not hide within the confines of your blog. Even though it doesn't make up for the logical fallacies, and complete irrational diatribe, possibly due to the complete misunderstanding of my blog, it does show that at least you are willing to defend your position after the counter attack. I will not visit your site...because you have chosen to attack me. If you want a debate you can do it here, and if you want your readers to read it, then you can link them here.

I've always been under the opinion that integrity comes with no fear. Since this forum was the original post, why did you not answer directly here? I had actually pondered on whether I should've even given you the satisfaction of an answer, because what you did was in fact cowardly. But then, in the end I caved in.
Never have I been on anyone's thread, forum etc... and rebutted their argument on MY own blog and frankly, I've never seen anyone else do it either.

Welcome aboard. Maybe your mind will open up a bit around here.

Hi LeftofLarry,

Good to hear from you at last!

Pretty amazing isn't it? I've enjoyed my discourse with Sapient and Todangst.

Thank you, my friend.

Well, I decided to bring my blog to your blog - unfortunately it was deleted so I had to actually post the whole thing here.

I figured that was the logical thing to do.

Thank you.

I'm sorry you see it that way... *SHRUGS* but okay.

Well, I was hoping to debate you one on one, LeftofLarry. You remind me of so many atheists that I reply to who insist that I go to their forum to debate the issue. But what they want is other atheists to argue against me and not the original person. To me, that's quite cowardly.

I did. Go ahead, look up your original blog and you'll see my reply.

Great. I like a challenge.

In my experience, plenty of atheists have done that to me. I'll give you names if you want.

Thanks, LeftofLarry, I hope your mind opens some more too.

Well... Okay.

Well, I'm selling it. And more and more atheists are buying it.

Well, I'm talking about mature kids who think with their guts and their brains.

I haven't seen that yet. You haven't even begin to reply to my arguments against your arguments against God. The only thing you've done so far is veer off in another direction and say I make ad hominem arguments against you. Figures.

Sure, you did. You said,

See?

As we've seen that wasn't the case.

Well, if you would stop being dishonest about my honesty, you wouldn't see how mind blowing it is. I guess, you would have to have a blown mind to say that I'm dishonest

My question wasn't a strawman because you actually said "the reason for your banning will be, that you are deceitful in your posts and trick people dishonestly into holding your position..."

Yet you give me the credit of actually responding to me! Thank you, my friend.

Well, if I made a lie I would like to see it too, so I won't make the same mistake twice, but so far you haven't even exposed any lies from me.

Well, as a materialist, I can see why.

*SHRUGS* Okay.

Here:

See? All I'm doing is responding, Brian. You don't have to be so angry about it.

No.

As we've seen that wasn't the case, because you did actually say said quote.

Well, I've been giving a dose of your own reality and you don't embrace it. You just blame me for making strawmans when we've seen that wasn't the case.

You haven't so far. In fact, the opposite is happening.

Well, you insinuated that you think I told you that you thought everything I said was immature. But my insinuation wasn't what you insinuated if you read it. You said, "We don't have the time for the "immature" games, you choose to play." And then I said, "Well, not everything I say is immature, Brian." And that's it. See?

*SHRUGS* I never said you said that.

Why can't I? Does being a member at RR have to obligate someone to go to the forums or chats?

I just pointed out her fallacies. That's all.

Please, use proper grammar.

Well, as we've seen that wasn't the case.

Thank you. I'm glad to be a member here.

Actually, they'll see the opposite, as your, uh, "misunderstanding" above showed.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm having a lot of fun! And it's all because of you, Brian.

Thanks, buddy,

Frank

Hi Todangst,

How are you doing?

I didn't lie about Barker. I quoted him verbatim. I'd prove it if I would be able to link here.

*SHRUGS* I don't care about people being rude to me. I think it's quite funny how atheists get really uptight with me.

Don't go denying my denials, Todangst. You'll be in denial, even when caught

That's not true. In fact, I've been posting against Brian Sapient and he hasn't even given a reply. Figures.

As we've seen that isn't true, because I've been responding to refutations of me.

... Okay.

Wow, after all this time, you're still holding a grudge, and bringing up an issue that technically doesn't have to do with the nature of the blog. It looks like thedude really got to you. Are you so mad that he refuted you that you feel like you have to come with a come back again and again and again? But let me urge everybody to look up the link Todangst gave. It's well worth reading.

I thank you for that, Todangst. You truly are a friend.

Frank

Over the last few weeks I have challenged Frank on why his blog is closed for comments. Finally I called him a coward for this policy. In turn he turned our email exchange into a blog post and has allowed comments on that ONE blog post. Judging from his comments on other blogs, his responses to me, he is simply very immaturre and disrespectful. That is his nature. He can only be credited with one virtous act. His ranting alerted me to the existence of your blog.

Very nice to make your acquaitance. My relatively new blog can be found at:
http://humanistobserver.blogspot.com/

Take care,
Sheldon

Man, this guy really thinks he's as smart as he seems to think?

LOL. Atheism cheapens life? Tell that to the suicide bombers blowing themselves up in the name of theism.

Fallacy of begging the question. Your statement implies that todangst had a grudge to begin with, yet you have not established this.

Fallacy of begging the question. Even if todangst answered, "No," his answer would imply that he had been refuted...another thing that you have not established.

Note: I realize Frank's question is rhetorical and that no answer to it is expected. I was just demonstrating the fallacy he committed hypothetically. By responding to the question with the answer "No," one would essentially be saying: "No, I'm not mad that I was refuted..."

Frank, do you still commit basic errors in logic?

If I hadn't just proved that you commit basic errors in logic, I'd be begging the question.