November 9, 2014

Atheism, Secularism and Lack of Logic



by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the main problems that atheists have is prejudicial conjecture. That is, they get all het up, thinking they know about something and spouting off their uninformed opinions while also trying to influence the views of others. When it comes to the Bible, many atheists not only resort to prejudicial conjecture, but many other logical fallacies including the straw man. Sorry, Cupcake, but we don't have to defend something we don't hold to or didn't say. This includes quote-mined material from the Bible.


Numerous fallacies can be rounded up in regards to creation science. They will misrepresent creationists, call us liars (their "proof" is essentially based on "because I said so repeatedly", but actually makes them the liars because of no real evidence), appeal to motive, poisoning the well, unfounded accusations, loaded terminology and a whole lot more. With just a little learning about informal logical fallacies, it's easy to spot atheopaths using numerous errors in what passes for reasoning on their world.


This is "Fair Use" for educational purposes. Also, I see that someone didn't cotton to Haywire's rants.
Another trick is redefining words to suit their purposes. The established definition of atheism is someone who believes there is no God or gods. Since that fails logic and philosophy tests, they have conveniently redefined it into someone who "lacks belief", but they are still making a belief statement. (Fine, I lack belief in a universe without God.) Since atheism is such a negative religion, it has been also redefined as secularism or even secular humanism, but both terms still come down to meaning "atheism". "Secularism" is not "neutral"; secularists keep working on removal of all vestiges of Christianity in public life. That is an establishment of an atheist religion, not "neutrality"!

One of the most popular efforts of quote mining by atheists in America is the so-called "Constitutional separation of church and state". Many people believe the lie that this is in the US Constitution. I remember some of a conversation about 30 years ago, I said to a guy, "The Constitution says that the church shall be separate from the state, and the school from the church". The other guy said, "Yes!" Then I informed him that I was almost-quoting from the USSR Constitution (it's in the 1936 and 1977 USSR Constitutions). He didn't like that trick, but it showed how he had accepted a belief without truth. The fact is, despite the manipulations and trickery of secularists, there is no such thing as the separation of church and state in the US Constitution! But atheist-sympathizing judicial activist judges in this country act like it's there.

Let's get back on the original trail again.

Atheists and other anti-creationists give uninformed opinions when they attack Christians and biblical creationists. Some think they've found problems with the Bible, therefore there is no God, but their objections have been answered long, long ago and answers are posted online. Very few have the intellectual integrity to honestly investigate from the sources about what we believe and teach. They get their information from other atheopaths and anti-creationists who misrepresent us, or just base their opinions on watching or reading secular humanist-based science fiction. How about going to the source instead of fallaciously paying attention to poorly-thought second-hand opinions? There really is a Creator, and he makes the rules. We are all going to be answerable to him one day. For some of us, it will be a joy. For others, it will be Hell (Phil. 2.9-11, Rev. 20.15). By denying God, you're making your choice with your pretended "secular" neutrality.

Wild Bill Finlay is an American Conservative commentator and a Christian. He has some good observations in this short video.

October 13, 2014

Atheists and Anti-Creationists Crazy from the Hate

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 10-14-2014.

The inspiration for this article is backwards. I saw a rant in an inconsequential forum by a vituperative but unimportant atheist. Then I read the article on one of the sites I subscribe to that brought his childish "you deny evolution and billions of years, so you're a liar" reaction. The article in question is by former theistic evolutionist Dr. David Catchpoole of CMI, "Faith can move mountains (but it can't change history)". He wrote a short article about the global Genesis Flood from his biblical creationist (young earth) perspective, and was given an ad hominem attack for his efforts by the aforementioned atheopath.

Dr. Catchpoole gave links in that article to some of the science articles supporting the Genesis Flood, but the critic did not seem to be interested in reading or responding to those. 

The uneducated atheopath railed against Catchpoole, displaying his inability to distinguish between a different interpretation of evidence and a lie (plus being intolerant of people for even having a non-evolutionary viewpoint). This shows something that I have been saying for years: Hate stupidifies. (Stupidify is a word I picked up from Matt Slick of CARM.) This fits with something that some theologians call the "noetic effect of sin", where God essentially says, "Enough! Have it your way, I won't contend with you any longer" (Romans 1.24-25). The point is that sin corrupts all aspects of someone's life, including the ability to reason. They think they can cogitate on something and be brilliant, but they really can't think well at all.



I've seen it. Some people can carry on a conversation, offer analysis of situations or observed facts, and so on. When it comes to matters of morality, theology and so on, their nice horsie of thought suddenly throws them from the saddle. What baffles me is that people make the most basic errors of logic, and are so consumed with hate that they do not make sense, and cannot be schooled in the most basic principles. I have pointed out the errors of some people, and then they justified their bad logic by doing the same things again, and they consider personal attacks to be "rational arguments"! God is right, they claim to be brilliant, but that's not the case (Romans 1.22). Worse, others who are in agreement with their hatred of God and excuses to reject him applaud the bad logic (Romans 1.32).

Many obstreperous atheists seem to think that they have a crusade to protect "science" and "reason" from "religion". What they are really doing is spreading hatred, bad logic and bigotry. If they want to have a purpose, get on God's side and fight for what is right. Someone rightly said, "If you want to rebel against someone, rebel against the devil!" That's true, since he is their master.

It is clear that true "freethinkers" are not atheists who believe they are intellectual. They are rebelling against God and are actually under the control of Satan (2 Corinthians 4.4, John 8.44). True free thinking comes through something that is irrational to them, and that is through submission to God (Proverbs 1.7). Until they repent and make Jesus Christ the Lord of their lives and thinking, they remain fools (Psalm 53.1) under their master's control. Addendum: An excellent article on a Christian view of the intellect is here.

October 6, 2014

Pluto, Special Pleading and Popular Opinion


The fallacy of "Special Pleading" is a form of "Moving the Goalposts" by ignoring important information, changing criteria to bolster one's position, appealing to emotions, and similar tactics. Christians and creationists have to deal with this quite a bit. F'rinstance, when I said that Bill Nye used bad science and logical fallacies when debating Ken Ham, I produced abundant supporting evidence. A critic cried, "...I have NOT studied it in detail. However, I note that it FAILS to quote anything Nye actually said at the debate with Ken Ham VERBATIM..." That's a clear example of moving the goalposts and special pleading (as well as the brilliant logical procedure of arguing from something not studied). Owlhoots like this tend to defend their logical fallacies with more fallacies, such as appeal to motive.


So, how about Pluto, the ninth planet of the solar system. Oh, wait. It was disqualified, and with apparently good reasons. People don't like it. We want Pluto to be a planet! When does popular opinion decide scientific classifications? An article in Time said, "The People Have Voted: Pluto is a Planet!" Isn't that misleading? Who cares how the people voted? The people's vote did not change the minds of astronomers. A worse title is, "Pluto Is a Planet Again, According to Harvard Astronomers", which is completely untrue. (Secular science, especially the pro-evolution press, pulls this kind of stunt frequently.) They did a bait-n-switch to get people to read the article, and then clarified with, "At least, that is, according to the audience at a debate at Harvard. Astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysicists (HSCFA) debated the topic “What is a planet?"


Mayhaps the definition of "planet" will change, but will that be based on moving the goalposts?

September 30, 2014

Problems with Secularist Theories of Knowledge

Back in college, I was not fond of philosophy and often cut class. One day, I showed up and it was test time. Essay test time. So I pulled out my mental shovel and piled it on and aced the test. Perhaps if we had started with theories of knowledge and presuppositions, I would have appreciated such things more. It took people like Jason Lisle and Greg Bahnsen to prompt my thinking in such areas.

Are there absolutes? How do you know what you know? What is your epistemology? Can we know things? How can we know anything? If we can't know things, then why can't we know them? We all have our starting points and use basic logic (such as the Law of Contradiction). Atheistic worldviews tend to be arbitrary and self-refuting in nature. Skepticism (the philosophy, not the modern stripped-down definition), Empiricism, Scientism, Rationalism and more are irrational and inconsistent.

We all have our ultimate starting points for our worldviews. The biblical Christian worldview is consistent, and has the necessary preconditions of intelligibility.

Jason Petersen of Answers for Hope discusses these matters in this 54-minute video presentation. A recommendation for people like me who play lectures at accelerated speed: Don't. The microphone is not close to Jason, and he talks at a decent speed anyway, so speeding it up may not be worth it.

September 18, 2014

Semantics, Logic and Anti-Christian Bigotry


by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A "meme" that I used on a post 1 provoked some amazingly obstreperous and arrogant comments from anti-creationists. They misused logic and presented some remarks that were saturated with hate. These were predicated on what they considered a misuse of "science", the current definition of the Big Bang. My introductory remarks in the post said that the Big Bang was an explosion, and the article that I linked in the post had did not discuss the Big Bang, it was about other explosions. But they apparently didn't bother to read that one, they wanted to rip the "anti science" of calling the Big Bang an "explosion".

Well, was the Big Bang an explosion? Or, more importantly for this article, is it justified to make such a remark? Yes, definitely. First, the Big Bang is called an explosion (or inferred by words like "cataclysmic") in dictionaries 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, but some must have received the memo that the "explosion" was upgraded to "rapid expansion" 7. Second, science-related sites including NASA, the American Museum of Natural History, National Geographic, PBS, BBC and others refer to it as an explosion 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

Redefining words when the original meanings become inconvenient is becoming more frequent, it seems:
  • "Atheism" is changed from the established meaning of "denial of the existence of God" 14 into the vacuous "lack of belief".
  • "Vestigial organs" moves from meaning leftovers from our evolutionary past that we do not need anymore 15 (false!) into Coyne's "no longer performs the purpose for which it evolved" 16 (begging the question as well as conveniently redefining the word).
  • Although everything came from "nothing", the word "nothing" now seems to mean "almost nothing, but we have to debate what nothing really means now" 17 .
  • The Big Bang is now a "rapid expansion" 18, even though the thing isn't really understood in the first place and gets constantly revised 19, and we have a great deal of evidence that it did not happen 20.
So, the Big Bang is not an explosion, it is a rapid expansion that moved faster than the speed of light 21 and pretty much looked like an explosion, it had previously been defined as an explosion, it really isn't, and if you call the Big Bang an explosion, you'll get slapped down by haughty pseudo-intellectuals who want to play with words. Pretty intolerant of them to be that way when people use completely understandable references to the Big Bang as an explosion.

Hey! Like many other people, and with good reasons, I said the Big Bang is an explosion!
Sorry to keep you, but there were some things that troubled me when I found groups in which this "meme" was "shared" (reposted on Facebook). People were using the redefinition to get uppity and attack Christians and creationists. This "meme" asked, "If someone believes that order can come from an explosion, do I want him repairing my computer?" (Come on, people these things are brief, using humor and often making a point.) I concluded that they were using "reason" and "logic" (very badly) as excuses for expressing hatred (click for larger):





This last one is full-blown atheopathy:

In an article I wrote about how Christian persecution is increasing, I quoted Matt Slick as saying that people act in a manner consistent with their beliefs 22. Indeed, people are expressing irrational opinions. Sometimes they act on them. Bigotry begins with words, and persecution comes from that. It will only get worse. But we were told to expect that (Matthew 5.11, John 15.18-22).

ADDENDUM: This guy has lied about me in the past, and helped prove my point with a worthless comment and loaded terminology. "Damage control"? An article that took about 3-1/2 hours to write and has over 20 supporting links is an article proving a point, not "damage control". Amazing.

August 28, 2014

The Increase of Christian Persecution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Disclaimer: I do not endorse all opinions on all sites found in supporting links.

This article is another of those times when several things came together for me that had been in the works for a while. I think God does that, just brings things together like that.

The Arabic letter that begins their word for Nazarine has become a social media event. Moslems are using it to mark the homes of Christians in Iraq (if there are any left there now), which is reminiscent of the way Nazis marked property belong to Jews. People are using this symbol and variations on it in social media to express solidarity 1. However, this is not anything new or unusual. Persecution of Christians is happening worldwide, especially in atheist and Moslem countries. There are ministries dedicated to spreading information and giving support to the persecuted Christians 2, 3, 4, 5.

Some of the threat to Christians is the increased Islamization in the West, but the more current threats are from militant atheists and secularists.

Currently, blatant physical persecution of Christians in Western countries is rare. It is primarily done as discrimination, hidden behind other excuses (such as poor job performance, or daring to publish information that questions evolution in peer-reviewed material 6). I have documented many instances in this Weblog of atheistic discrimination and persecution. (Some dishonest atheists claim that Christians are not being persecuted, and that they are instead! Ironically, William Murray, the son of famous misotheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, leads the Religious Freedom Coalition 7.) Although what we endure in Western countries is much milder than our brothers and sisters in Christ are facing in other parts of the world, be certain that it is coming our way 8, 9, 10, 11.

As I mentioned before, there is not much "I'm persecuting you because you're a Christian". Instead, there are excuses and false charges used as excuses to harass, imprison, torture and murder Christians. A good part of this is done by labeling. Sometimes it is with "criminal" charges, some labels are as vague as "enemy of the state" or "child abuser" (Clinton Richard Dawkins likes to equivocate and call Christians who teach their values to their children "child abusers", for example 12). One reason I believe that many atheists hate Christians who teach creation is that we want to encourage people to think critically and examine the evidence instead of simply believing what "scientists say". This also slows atheists down when they want to defame us by appealing to people's emotions with illegitimate, loaded-term labels. Persecution and discrimination begin with words.

Take a look at this 3-1/2 minute video:




"More and more people are having a hatred for Christians . . . People behave in a manner consistent with what they believe. If they believe that Christianity's okay . . . they're going to behave very much differently than someone who believes Christianity is a hate-mongering, filthy religion that needs to be destroyed. People with different belief systems are going to behave in different manners based on the belief system that they have. We behave in a manner consistent with what we believe, not with what we don't believe. I have seen an increase in hostility towards Christianity from all types of groups..."
— Matt Slick, "Matt Slick Live", CARM.org, June 2, 2014
Now I am going to give an example of some of the nonsense that I frequently deal with (which is about 1/100 of what major creation ministries constantly endure). This character is inconsequential and cannot harm me (and I dislike indulging his craving for attention), but his libel illustrates what Paul Washer and Matt Slick are saying 13.

Later, another liar stated, "bob just said you want to kill all creationists" [sic]
Remember, persecution and discrimination begin with words. Words express thoughts and attitudes. People appeal to emotion 14, get others on "their side" and things escalate from there. It has happened before in history, and it is happening again. We need to stand firm and remember what God has told us in his written Word (Matt. 5.10-12, Matt. 24.9, John 15.20, Acts 8.1, 1 Cor. 15.9, 2 Cor. 4.8-12, 2 Tim. 3.12, 1 Peter 2.19-20, Psalm 14.1, Prov. 1.7).

July 28, 2014

Logic Lessons: Arguing from Silence

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In a previous "Logic Lesson", I touched on the Argument from Silence, but I forgot that I did it! Diddly dur hay. Anyway, this is a more complete treatment.

Arguments from silence, like other fallacies, have some clear-cut examples that are easily identifiable. The basic form is that if someone does not answer a question or give a response, it is taken as confirmation that the other person is right. Unfortunately, I do not have screenshots of one of my favorite examples. An atheopath on Twitter was attacking me for something or other, and I had better things to do (such as watching television). When I came back to Twitter, I realized that I had lost a "debate". The guy had been firing of questions and comments. Because he did not get responses from me, he declared victory for himself — I lost a debate that I did not know I had!

Here is another one. It was posted in a forum, and I found out that it was e-mailed to me from a spammer-stalker who knows that I have blocked him from my e-mail:
"Oh, and his total FAILURE to answer my question below* proves that Bob Sorensen is a liar, full stop. . . . *I am afraid that silence from Bob will be taken to indicate that he is unable to do this, and that he makes untruthful statements about opponents that he cannot subsequently defend - thus I would advise him against ignoring this challenge."
He is adding several manipulative conditions on the failure to respond. Edit: He read this, but obvious did not learn, and was kind enough to provide another example, here.

One more, and it is a challenge because it is complicated:



Sorry about the image quality, I was quite unskilled in screenshots back then. Anyway, Norman the Paranoid Troll (long-time readers, do you remember him?) is using a weird combination of argument from silence and the either/or fallacy. By deleting his posted comments, the site owner admits that followers of Jesus lie and kill. "If you do not agree, be honest and let them stand", which has the either/or fallacy of "If you do not let these comments stand, you are not honest". Very manipulative and despicable. And yet, the spammer-stalker quoted above this screen shot makes Norman seem almost sane.

On a side note (and I think I've said this before), if someone is going to say, think, write evil about you, there is nothing you can do to stop him. When the antagonist is non compos mentis, just laugh and move on. Unless it is actual libel, the consider legal action like I am doing.

Along with other fallacies, the argument from silence can blend and overlap with other fallacies (as we just saw). Also like other fallacies, the argument from silence can actually be valid on occasion when used with other evidence which is valid, and is not a fallacy in those instances. In my examples, I did not feel like indulging the critics who were making the demands. If I had made a claim and was challenged but did not respond, the other party might be justified in being suspicious. (Refusal to accept clear evidence does not count.) But such a use of argument from silence as valid evidence is tricky, so never mind about that now.

Yet again like other fallacies, it can take different forms.

What I am going into now is not the argument from silence per se, but I think these are forms of it. To say something like, "There's no point in reporting it to Maintenance, they won't do anything anyway", or, "I'm not going to read that creation science stuff, I know what they're going to say" have some things in common with the argument from silence. (I think there may be a bit of the appeal to motive fallacy mixed in as well.) To me, these are just excuses to avoid taking action or learning something. Plus, precognition and clairvoyance are not generally accepted in discussions of logic.

Part of a tantrum regarding The Question Evolution Project on Facebook


The adage applies, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Be on guard against someone who tries to pull a fast one by using an argument from silence, since it is a way to bully people into doing things and can lead to nonsensical "victories". Also, be careful that you do not do this yourself in a casual or manipulative manner.

Here is a good article on the basics of the "argument from silence".

July 17, 2014

Why Can't Atheists Find God?

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen 



The simple answer to the question of why atheists cannot find God is that they really do not want to find him. However, that raises several other questions and issues.


Many times, atheists claim to have rejected belief in God because of reason (as if theists somehow were automatically irrational because of their beliefs, which is a logical fallacy right there, and many atheists frequently demonstrate a grasp of basic logic). If they had used some of the logic they claim to like, they would be confronted with some problems that they cannot escape. Atheists cannot account for logic itself, and they are unable to answer the question of existence. Although some think that evolution solves some problems and helps them become intellectually fulfilled, evolution is a failure. Materialists have attempted to scientifically locate a place for free will and the soul in the brain, and they try but fail to account for morality through evolution. The truth is that atheism is irrational and incoherent, and does not deal with the big issues of human existence. Only biblical Christianity can do that.


"Prove to me God exists!"


No.


The Bible makes it clear that people have the evidence that they need (Romans 1.18-22). In fact, it seems like common sense to say, "Just look around". But many atheists want scientific evidence for the existence of God. It is a logical fallacy to want material proof for God, who is spirit and outside the limitations of time and space. Everyone knows that God exists, but want to justify their rebellion against God. If you want to really rebel, rebel against your father, the one who controls the establishment (John 8.44, 2 Corinthians 4.4).




"But if God should prove to me that he exists with a miracle!"


Haven't you been paying attention? You already have the evidence you need... Let me show you something else. Atheists have been asked, "If I gave you the kind of proof that you want, would you serve God?", and the answers have often been, "No". Also, what makes you so special? God has explained himself (John 1.14, 2 Peter 1.16-19). You have no business demanding anything from the Creator of the universe, and he doesn't have to jump through hoops to please anyone. He doesn't even have to have anything to do with sinful humanity (Romans 3.23, Romans 6.23), as we are all sinners and deserve Hell (Matthew 25.41, Luke 16.23-24, Matthew 13.42, Revelation 20.13-15). We don't have to go there. God made provision for us through Jesus Christ (John 1.12, John 5.24, 2 Corinthians 5.17, Galatians 3.26, 1 John 3.2, Revelation 21.3-4).


Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to discuss things and give evidence. But I am not going to "prove that God exists" and contradict God's Word.


Just suppose, for the sake of discussion, that God decided that you were going to get a special privilege and see a miracle. Would you believe? There were disciples of Jesus who had seen him after he had risen, yet some still doubted (Matthew 28.17). Miracles are not a guarantee that someone will believe. Belief in God is not a matter of intellect or evidence. For every evidence presented, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device; people keep trying to justify their unbelief. No, it is a matter of the spirit, not proof or evidence. Why do you think atheists and evolutionists hate biblical creationists so much? We speak the truth without compromise.

Although the Bible contains numerous examples of miraculous events leading to faith and repentance in the lives of people, it is clear from biblical history that miracles are not always a reliable cure for a hardened unbelief.

The topic of proving God’s existence has been discussed and analyzed many times. In 1985 a popular debate on this subject was held between Reformed theologian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein. Stein was asked what would “constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?” He answered, “If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.” What if an even greater miracle happened? Would you believe in God if He showed up at your door?
You can read the rest by clicking on "Proving God’s Existence — Would You Believe If He Showed Up at Your Door?"

June 28, 2014

The Other Anti-Christian "F-Word"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Because humans are complicated beings, we respond to a number of different stimuli. Some are at very basic reflex and chemistry levels, such as "fight or flight". At the other end of the spectrum, we can intelligently consider various pieces of information and arrive at reasonable conclusions.

Somewhere in the middle is the complication of emotions. Although they can respond to logic when recognized and a decision is made to bring them under control, they often arise unbidden. People have been "thinking" through their emotions for a very long time; I believe it is worse now than it used to be. There are people who want to manipulate others through emotions (whether deliberately or intentionally), and we need to be on guard against such tactics. That is one reason I wrote a series about common logical fallacies. By recognizing fallacies and the way so many are based on appeals to emotions, we are less likely to fall for tricks, and can improve our own thinking processes. But we are people, after all, and emotions are a part of what makes us human.

Keep in mind that there is a fine line between influencing and manipulating. Manipulation tries to remove someone's choice and bypass their reasoning abilities. Influencing can have an emotional appeal, but respects people enough to let them make their decisions without trickery.

One of the simplest appeals to emotion for the purpose of manipulation is labeling or name-calling. Many words have connotations (secondary meanings in addition to the actual meaning), and many of those are emotionally-laden. Labels can be useful as reference points in dealing with people, especially for those who label themselves. Definitions are often vitally important, and people may need to clarify what they mean with labels. I am a Christian and a biblical creationist. How you understand those words and relate to me may be different from my understanding of them.

Labels are often assigned to people as ad hominem attacks, and are also used to poison the well. Misotheists and anti-creationists often want to silence the opposition, and a way to do that is to use negative labels in an effort to negate what the other person has to say. One of those is "homophobe", which is actually an overused nonsensical word. According to some people, those of us who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality being a sin, we get labeled with the nonsense word "homophobes". Although I do not phobe any homos, the word "homophobe" has the baggage of someone who hates homosexuals and advocates violence against them. "He's just one of them homophobes. Gonna stone a gay to death today? Hahahaha!" Emotionally-loaded terminology plus ridicule in a personal attack, and the well may be poisoned. Others on the same low intellectual level are manipulated in joining the hate from the label-er against the label-ee. There is not much actual thought here, just emotional reactions and manipulation.

Another of those words is "fundie". "I went to a fundy site and trolled them because I'm so much smarter than they are, and I prove it by acting like a child! Hahahaha!" Just a minute there, Poindexter. Do you know what a "fundy" really is? It has nothing to do with the Bay of Fundy in Maine. If you're going to insult someone, at least spell it properly. Let me ask again: Do you know what a fundie really is?

Some do know that "fundie" is short for "Fundamentalist". Here again, definitions are important. I did an article on that some time ago here, so I will not reiterate much of that content. Suffice to say that it has become a rather imprecise word that means someone who believes in the fundamentals of his or her faith. The connotation is very negative, and some see a Fundamentalist as a rigid, anti-intellectual, dour, humorless Christian. For a while, Mohammedan terrorists were referred to as "fundamentalists", but now they are called "radicals". (Perhaps people wanted to switch the emotional baggage of "fundamentalist" or "fundie" to Christians. I'm speculating on that, though.) However, that knife cuts both ways. Atheists and evolutionists have their own fundies.



The religion of atheism and religious cult of evolution have their share of fundamentalists in the most negative sense of the word. They attack and malign Christians and creationists, resorting to the previously mentioned emotional manipulation, trolling, litigation, protests, as well as numerous logical fallacies, plagiarism, selective citing, slander, libel and so much more. Then they wonder why people don't like them! It seems to me that if someone was convinced that his worldview was correct, he would smile to himself and go on about his business instead of spending time and money trying to destroy something that he does not believe exists in the first place. Does that strike you as rational behavior?

On a side note, if evolution were true, we would simply be bundles of chemicals doing what they tell us to do. We cannot even account for the reality of our thoughts or memories, because they may not really exist, we just think that we think. Someone would therefore have no legitimate right to complain that I am a heterosexual married man that believes in God, affirms that homosexuality is a sin, refutes atheism, teaches the truth of creation science and so on — I was born that way. Deal with it. There would be no ultimate moral standard, no "right and wrong", and "justice" would be ridiculous. But God does exist, and there is an ultimate standard of morality.

Using words with connotations are also used to have a positive influence. Atheists have many of these, using terms like "rational", "freethinker", "brights", "skeptic", "reason" and so on to appear that they are more intelligent than others. Watch for terms like, "Rationalists believe in science" (which is automatically self-refuting) and, "Fundamentalist ideologues..." (that last bit has two loaded words in a row, you may have noticed). "Theistic evolutionists are more moderate Christians than creationist fundies". They build themselves up and put others down through loaded terminology and pejoratives, and do not use reason to refute positions they disagree with. I expect that thinking people who encounter terms like, "Creationists use disgusting lies in a desperate attempt..." will move along and find something better to do.

Who ya callin' a fundie, fundie?

Definitions are important. When someone uses a word with emotional "punch", it becomes more important to understand what is meant by the word. Also, if someone is using several of these emotive words at a time, that should set off your inner alarm bells so you can consider if that person is really saying anything at all, or just provoking a reaction. It may just be an atheist or evolutionist fundie with nothing to say.

June 13, 2014

It All Adds Up: Many Atheists are Nuts

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Good day to publish this. Not only is it Friday the 13th, but also a full moon.


At the end of 2010, I had the audacity to even dare to ask if atheism causes brain damage. Apparently, it is one of the ultimate crimes to question anything about the intelligence, morality or sanity of The Mighty Atheist™ because I received a number of attacks, misrepresentation and outright lies. (A guy can't even ask?) Later, atheists were incensed and went into full denial mode when I later pointed out that there is a definite link between atheism and autism.


They do tend to become furious and attack like piranhas at any perceived slight, or if someone criticizes one of their religious icons, such as Clinton Richard Dawkins:



For that matter, priests of atheism and evolutionism like Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson will tell blatant untruths and then their fanboys will gleefully spread them around. 

Observing their behavior (especially online, where they can be bold and beautiful behind their keyboards), and drawing from other things I've learned, I realized that many modern atheists are not just people who happen to reject God. Atheism is not an intellectual position. Rather, it is a way to intellectualize, justify and suppress the truth in unrighteousness so they can indulge in moral corruption

Although atheists are a small minority of the population, it appears that their demographic contains a high percentage of people who are out of their minds. The main problem is spiritual (God "gave them over", Romans 1.18-24). Not only do they exhibit many tendencies of psychopaths (including tolling), but go beyond that into the more dangerous realm of the narcissistic psychopath.

I don't have time to go into detail about what I have seen and experienced, but will point out that this is well in keeping with atheopaths and the new atheo-fascism. (Note the instances of angry atheist evolutionists toward violence, as documented here.)

Moving forward now. An article caught my attention, "Profile of a Narcissistic Sociopath – Charming, Manipulative, Grandiose, Lying, Authoritarian, Secretive, Divisive…". It is not from a Christian perspective, but it has a few points that I would like to go over.


"They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace." I have heard it said (and fully agree) that many professed atheists do not disbelieve in God so much as they are so narcissistic, they are their own gods and there is no room for the real one in their lives. Especially because God cannot be impressed by human "wisdom" and accomplishment, but we must humble ourselves and accept him on his terms, not ours.

"They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else’s fault." Even when you catch one in a lie or an error, the blame is shifted; it's not my fault because someone else made me foul up.

"They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed." I have gained stalkers who have never forgiven me for catching them in lies and logical fallacies, and I have documentation of the same treatment given to others. Instead, we are made to be the liars and the fools in their eyes, and they think we are concerned about what they think. Not hardly. But they do make for good examples so we can instruct thinking people.

"Feels entitled to certain things as 'their right.'" Such as the "right" to be able to make comments, and some get furious when they are not permitted to spout off with their abusive and irrational comments. 

"Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others." Like I said, they make themselves into their own gods. Let me be blunt: In addition to this, they are attention whores. If you do not grant them a platform, the "right" to turn your social media area, Weblog or whatever into their own urinals, they have fits. Some even take an "I'm out to get you" approach, thinking they are doing the world a favor by attacking others through ad hominems and libel. In so doing, they seek to demonize the individual, since they cannot deal with logical arguments and engage in civil discussions for any length of time. Don't get me started on how so many of these militant misotheists are self-appointed experts on a multitude of topics...

"A Sociopath will always be smearing someone and inciting people against each other. Sociopaths do not want people to like or get along with each other and will try to 'divide and conquer.' They will say odd things to people in the social group: 'She doesn’t like you' or 'She doesn’t want me doing anything with you.'" This was particularly interesting to me because I see these people searching the Web and "recruiting" others in their campaigns of hate. 



Twitter and YouTube are notorious for having people get others to join in on ridicule. More than once, I've caught an atheopath in logical fallacies, then suddenly I am expected to answer to about six people at one time (and barely able to type out four words in reply there). It is like schoolchildren who were caught smoking in the restroom and want to get others hating the teacher who caught them being rotten in the first place.

"Sociopath has a strange network of Support People ranging from 'consultants,' to skilled-workers, to enabling co-dependents that back him up when he wants to go after his Target. Most of the Support People have their own Psychological problems." Yes, they have their "dens" (as I call them) where they blaspheme God, and whine about Christians and "religion", whether it's the double-standard-laden Facebook, forums or other venues. There were times it read more like a support group than anything else. But it is really interesting to see some furious atheists whining about the big, bad Christians, getting so obstreperous that the other atheists consider them to be of no consequence.

I could go on with this article, add screenshots and links ad nauseum, but you get the idea. Take a look at "Profile of a Narcissistic Sociopath" and see how many you have encountered (endured) yourself. Keep in mind that they crave attention, and keep trying to provoke you to get it. It gets difficult sometimes (especially because so many attempt to manipulate you by appealing to your emotions and pride), but do try your best to leave them behind.



Subscribe in a reader