Stormbringer's Thunder

Edited 5-30-2016 and 4-12-2021 Buon giorno. In late 2010 and early 2011, I attracted the attention of a furious misotheist tinhorn who used one of the mantras that people of is type will copy and paste from other non-thinking atheist propaganda sites. Specifically, the claim that "children are born atheist, and learn theism later on". I called him on it; this is an unprovable assertion. Instead of offering evidence to support his fallacious assertion, he followed the Atheist Handbook™ and resorted to ridicule. It appears that not only is the claim that "children are born atheist" a fallacy of assertion and completely unsupportable, the opposite may be true! Yep, children may be born theist. Is atheism or theism more natural for human beings? According to online author Tim Covell, “Everyone is born atheist. Religion is learned.” Over at the “rational response squad” you’re treated to the claim that “Many people don’t know it but everyone is born an Athei...

These have been floating around in my Internet circles. "Coexist"? Not likely. Here's why:    

Having been interested in political matters as well as spiritual, it gives me some interesting opportunities for observation. I am not saying that I'm unique and special in this area, but when I hang around with Biblical apologists, they do not seem to have much interest in politics, and vice versa. Things I have learned about logic and apologetics have applied to political rhetoric quite nicely. There are a few things that I would like to explain to you, the viewing audience, to use during the rest of the American 2012 political season. Learn some basics.  I have some "Logic Lessons" (emphasizing informal logical fallacies) listed in the margin on this Weblog. Although they are focused on Christian apologetics and vituperative atheists have kindly supplied me with several excellent illustrations, the points made should translate to other areas, including politics. Also, there are links to other sites in those articles for further information on the logical fallacies. E...

Atheists play a disingenuous game of moving the goalposts by redefining the word "atheist". Instead of the established definition of "belief that there is no God or gods", it becomes, "I lack belief in a God or gods". That load of rubbish is insultingly transparent. By the way, does a "lack of belief" motivate people to troll Christian sites under multiple and assumed names, protest Christian activities, write books and make lots of money, incessantly attack God and Christians on obscure and irrelevant Weblogs, hang out with other non-thinkers to brag about your logical fallacies &c? No, I didn't think so. Misotheists have a belief system, and something that motivates their worldview. I heard a caller to a talk show bring this up the other day, and I thought I'd run with it. Yeah, two can play that "I lack belief so I have nothing to prove" game: (Click for larger) A follow-up article is here .

Buona sera.  I received an e-mail from my old pal Joshua James. And then he sent me "2nd Attempt" e-mail. It certainly is nice that he's persistent. He probably knows me and I rudely forgot about him, because he actually addressed me by name on one of my accounts where I conduct legitimate business. Let's see... what are the problem areas? Trust has to be earned.  I learned from some of my associates this valuable lesson, that you don't give away too much trust too soon or you could end up taking a dirt nap, capice?  Trust your instinct a little, but give trust slowly. This cafone  hasn't done anything to earn my trust, since I never heard of the guy before. The only  thing going for it is that my name is there, but he could have bought it from another of my business contacts or subscriptions. Hotmail flagged it.  Sure, I get stuff flagged all the time. That's why I check the spam filter. I'm a member.  Of what? I didn't join anything. C...

Did you think that Basement Cat's only nemesis was Ceiling Cat? Or my Bible? Really? I don't think so...

Amazing. America was founded on Christian values (don't let the revisionist liars fool you). But some who want to follow in Stalin's footsteps and make this country an entirely secular nation ignore that fact. No, it appears that they want to remove the rights of Christians, or at least, force us to keep our beliefs to ourselves. Why don't those contemptible clowns realize that the United States Supreme Court has references to the Ten Commandments all over their building? Listen up, Poindexter, the so-called "separation of church and state" is not only something that is not found in the Constitution, you and your disbeliever friends have never had anything to fear from the Judeo-Christian ethic being expressed in public. I still think back to what Brad Stine says: Atheists are irrational. What is more irrational, someone praying to a God that he cannot see, or someone being "offended" by a God he doesn't even believe exists? But I digress. Let...

People who read my material: BONUS:  

I unfortunately get quoted as someone who thinks that Jesus didn't exist, which I think is very strange because I've written an entire book on what Jesus said and for him to say or do anything, he had to exist. I don't think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. — Bart Ehrman It's one thing to deny that Jesus was God in the flesh who is the only way to salvation (John 14.6, Col. 1.16-17). But to deny that Jesus never existed? May as well deny all of ancient history, then. [ 1 ] Some critics object to using the Bible as a historical document because it is attempting to prove something. Well, that's what books do, Derwood! The Bible is one of the best historical documents in existence. [ 2 , 3 , 4 ] There are almost no serious scholars who deny his existence. To me, it is the height of desperation and misotheism to find some fringe scholar to support such arrogant, foolish views. Serious scholars do know that Jesus did exist, and there...

Revised 19 May 2013. I have writte n about this before , but it's time to have another go at it and make it better. It's about accusations of "liar". Some other people and I took someone to task in a forum for using the pathetically obtuse and detestable accusation, "liar for Jesus", something that people like this probably picked up from Dawkins . I have yet to see that garbage used by someone who was not simply attempting to provoke a negative reaction. Here are some reasons that this libelous phrase is agonizingly stupid: It implies that the accuser knows the motives of the person, including a desire to deceive The accuser does not stop to consider that God does not condone lying How it is inconsistent to accuse someone of lying to get someone to believe in a holy God Judging from my own observations and experience, other accusations of "liar" come from people who are unable to differentiate between lies and a difference of opini...