What? The guy clearly has consistently destroyed your arguments. Why do you feel the need, when presented with such a massive body of evidence pointing quite clearly towards to contrary (concerning the phrase in question), to argue against it and then when finally beaten claim that further debate would 'violate wikipedia policies'. You quite clearly are a militantly pro-Atheist, pro-Nietzschean fool who can't accept anyone challenging his, and therefore irrefutable, view of the world. 

Just goes to show though, you are just as dogmatic as the priests from the pulpit you so deride.