Stormbringer's Thunder

Again, I have to say that people who claim to believe in "tolerance" (which is another form of relativism ) tend to be the least tolerant. The true spirit of science is to investigate possibilities, test, repeat, verify and so forth. Except that evolution is protected as a "fact", and none dare question it (faith based on dogmatism). When creationists come along and say, "We have scientific evidence that evolution is not correct, and we have better explanations of the facts", well... Information scientist, author and evangelist, Dr Werner Gitt, a close friend of CMI, told us that on 23 October 2008 he was subjected to the most strident opposition he had ever encountered. The venue was the Audimax theatre at the Leibniz University in Hannover, Germany. Dr Gitt had been invited to give a lecture by the Forum Bibel-Glaube-Wissenschaft (Forum of Bible-Faith-Science). The talk was titled, ‘Why I as a scientist believe the ...

Buona sera. On one hand, atheism has been redefined from "belief there is no god or gods" to, "lack of belief" (probably changed because they were humiliated in philosophical discussions) . Well, why does someone's "lack of belief" motivate them to attack God, the Bible and Christians? Not just snorting in disdain and walking away, but vicious, personal attacks. If they weren't so stupidified by their hatred, they might ask themselves the same questions. Also, it is hypocritical to claim that God does not exist (another inconsistency on the part of people who "lack belief"), but devote Weblogs, books, book reviews, hours of trolling and such to attack him and his people. If he does not exist, then leave it alone, capice? But no, they want it both ways. Recently, I have had a lot of conversations with atheists. Many express a strong hatred of God. I have been at a loss to explain this. How can you hate someone you ...

This logical fallacy is difficult to classify in some ways because of the huge potential for blending and overlapping with other fallacies (especially ad hominem ). Appeal to Ridicule is a form or subclass of the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, and is often used as a kind of Red Herring to distract the opponent from the topic under discussion.   This fallacy is something that I encounter very frequently and in various forms: Creation science is stupid . This is the "purest" form of the fallacy, where the topic is directly ridiculed. You must be an idiot fascist because you believe in God, and religion is stupid.  Now you can see an ad hominem  attack mixed with the ridicule. Intelligent design is stupid and unscientific because it's just "Goddidit".  A Straw Man fallacy is  mixed with the ridicule. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. The emotional aspect of an Appeal to Ridicule can be powerful. If you are not on guard against it, y...

There were voices in the night  "Don't do it!" Voices out of sight "Don't do it!" — Chris DeBurgh, "Don't Pay the Ferryman" Buon giorno. I did some bad logic. Yes, I know it's astonishing. But your astonishment will evaporate when I tell you that it was on purpose. You see, when I did an article about appearing on an atheist "show" (podcast thing), I asked the viewing public if I should engage in this activity: The question itself is biased. Then, the first two answer choices contained loaded wording. The third selection was legitimate, and the last two were because I wanted to be funny (I was the only one to vote on "Sorry, what?"). If I worked for a pollster, I would have been sacked. In the article, I pointed out my dealings with some of those people in this "show" included manipulation, personal attacks, ridicule, profanity and fundamentally flawed logic. They must think...

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." — Aleister Crowley Buon giorno.  I called Matt Slick of CARM on his radio show, and we had a rambling discussion as if we were old pals.  In this edited excerpt, I took out tangents, some pauses and nonessentials that detract from the discussion. Matt and I were both enjoying the topics, and we covered a great deal of ground. The items discussed in the clip include Matt teaching me a new word (" sesquipedalian "), the logical fallacies of evolutionists and atheists, their blind faith remarks, bad evidence (like Lamarckianism and the Miller Experiment ) and the demonic influence on atheists.  I pointed out that one of the foundational points of the LaVey version of Satanism is selfishness. Also, the sin of Lucifer was pride . Obviously, selfishness and pride go well together, and modern arrogant atheists are saturated with pride. This leads to further sin, and to "stupidification" (that is, ...

A video at the "Answering Muslims" Weblog, plus references from the Koran, the Hadith, Mohammedan commentaries, the Sira and links. Through the centuries, thousands of people have claimed to be prophets. Only one, however, rested his claims on the fact that his aorta hadn't been cut. Ironically, as this man lay dying, he confessed that he could feel his aorta being severed. Click here for the video, references and comments .

Buona sera. Every once in a while, I talk about equivocation. It is a way of blurring the meanings of words by assigning definitions. For instance, microevolution is true. It is variations within species but not breaking away from the limits imposed by genetic information. Macroevolution is not true, "goo to you" changes lead to entirely new creatures. When someone says, "Evolution is observed all the time", sure, but only on the small scale. To try to convince you that evolution happens on a large scale because it is observed on a small scale is an example of equivocation. Atheists tend to use equivocation regarding Christianity. Is it their fault? In some ways yes, and in some ways no. Let me walk you through the steps. The Bible is supposed to be the foundation for Christian faith and practice. The Catholic church uses the Bible to some extent, but also mixes in traditions, rituals, man-made rules &c. In addition, the Catholic church is the oldest and mos...

Buona sera. Here's another public service from Stormbringer Productions. My burn phone received a text message from someone I do not know. I don't like that. It's a burn phone, for crying out loud, and I don't want  many people to have the number, capice?  Besides, this kind is a pay-per-minute thing. So, what to my wondering eyes did appear? A miniature message from 1-702-683-4036: "Today we can let you borrow 1000.00! Its easy and takes 5 minutes to get approved by a licensed lender-www.[fuggedaboudit].com." I got Hal the Hacker involved, and he saw that it came from a wireless caller in or near Las Vegas. (Also called "Lost Wages", and that's exactly what this jerk is trying to do to my wages.) As near as we can figure it, this bunch of spammers grab several burn phones, spam out text messages to send you to their Website. No need for them to worry about getting their accounts deleted, because their dirty work is done and they just move on ...

Buona sera.  It's sad, really. There are some organizations that we were able to rely on to help develop the skills and character of our young people. Since the rise of the "anything goes", tolerance, politically correct, drift to moral liberalism and political leftism, we have to check everyone, it seems.  The Girl Scouts of the USA has lost its focus. Not only will they allow boys who are sexually confused (mostly from lousy parenting) to join their ranks, but their continual journey to the left is becoming alarming, to say the least. Their November 2011 convention is full of extreme leftists , including pro-abortionists, lesbians and other femi-nazis. Since GSUSA is hypocritical about the values they claim to support , girls are feeling betrayed and are leaving the organization . The Girl Scouts organization needs to face some very tough questions. Here are some questions that girls and their parents can ask to see if GSUSA is really the kind of outfit that they w...

Buona sera. Have you ever noticed that the people who make the most noise about "tolerance" are the least tolerant? There are two problems with their views. First, "tolerance" has been redefined. In normal use in the context of viewpoints, we can tolerate other people's opinions and values, respect their right to have them. There is no shooting, shouting, ridicule, browbeating, Internet trolling and so forth. We may discuss our differences, we may not. Now the redefinition of tolerance has the connotation that all views are valid, truthful and right. The second problem with the views of the tolerance crowd is that they will not tolerate the view that someone is right and the others are wrong. You tolerate everyone, but when I say that I am right, my views are not to be tolerated. So, their philosophy is ridiculous. Capice? The Christian viewpoint is the least tolerated, especially if we say that there is a God, there is only one God (Isaiah 45.6), Jesus is th...