Stormbringer's Thunder

Buon giorno. When atheists redefine the established definition of the word "atheist" ("No, we didn't!") into the Dawkinsesque, "I lack belief in God or gods", they are being dishonest. That's right, I said it! The ploy is to say, "You believe in God. I lack belief, so I have nothing to prove. So, you prove it, and I'll just sit here in my lack of belief". Ridiculous. They are making a truth claim that "There is no God". They equivocate God with the Tooth Fairy, but there are no converts to Tooth Fairyism, no philosophers, nobody writing books about how the Tooth Fairy changed their lives. Thinking people should not fall for that insulting, smug nonsense, capice? So, what about the guy who says, "I lack belief in the September 11 terrorist attacks, and I lack belief that the Holocaust happened"? Do you just say, "Oh, since you lack belief, you have nothing to prove"? Like the atheist, they are ...

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. You've had atheists lie to you about not having an agenda, haven't you? Well, they want to evangelize us away from our faith. That's why I keep trying to encourage Christians to know how these people act, and to get into the Word. You can't stand up for the truth if you don't understand it, capice? While attempting to destroy the faith of individuals (if you don't believe me, you're not an open Christian on Facebook or Twitter), they also want to destroy religion itself . Especially Christianity. Just ask Richard Dawkins about his hypocritical crusade destroy Christianity . Of course, when we have events like "Question Evolution Day" in "The Question Evolution Project", the foundation of the atheist religion is threatened and they get really mean. Perhaps they'll be discussing this at their " Unreason Fest " or whatever that gathering is called. Yeah, dare to show flaws in evolutionism, and you can find...

A recent article by an atheist is getting some attention. He does not appreciate the actions of his brethren. I'll come back to this later. Several times in the past, I have documented my experiences and observations, and those of others, regarding militant atheists. Interestingly, they play the victim by saying that Christians persecute atheists! That is the opposite of the truth 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 . Christians are defenders of the rights of people to believe (and disbelieve) without coercion to convert. When I inquired of others about the "old days" of my experience, when most atheists were "live and let live", with an attitude of, "I do not believe, you do, we can discuss it or not, whatever", some people say that they are like Muslims: Nice at first, but when they gain power, watch out. And don't you dare question evolution ! There were not many atheopaths in my experience in the early 1970s, but I remember Scott. He was a pseudo-intell...

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 ...

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.  Made at Atom Smasher 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 ...

Buon giorno.   One of the apologetics podcasts that I listen to is Greg Koukl on " Stand to Reason ". He is yet another former atheist turned apologist for the Christian faith. He  has a radio show , and gives monologues as well as receives calls from Christians, atheists and other people. A caller wanted to know how to discuss the atheists' claim that they "lack belief", and Greg shows how that claim not only misrepresents itself, but is essentially dishonest and irrational. You can hear that discussion below, or the  entire podcast for August 21, 2011 . [Edit: Also go here for a related post .]

Those of us who have been riding the Apologetics Trail for some amount of time know that professing atheists (Rom. 1:18-23) on the internet are, for the most part, weak thinkers. While some may have a modicum of skill at philosophy, most make serious logical and philosophical errors. For example, demanding scientific proof that God exists is a category error , because God is not a material object. We also see ridiculous professing Christians used as examples to say that all religion is evil, which is a hasty generalization . (You can see more of the common informal logical fallacies that misotheists use on the logic lessons page .) Worse, though, is that atheists are forced to believe antiscience because of their worldview. Darwin antiscience, modified from a Pixnio image Examples of why molecules-to-misotheist evolution is unscientific are in many places, including Piltdown Superman  and this weblog. Evolution is foundational to their belief system. (Yeah, I know, they "lack bel...

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...

Thank God modern atheism is sliding into a downward spiral. One thing I have noticed among modern fundamentalist Internet atheists is denial. When they are show how atheism is on the slide, they resort to the infallible scientific response of "making stuff up". They will call me a liar, whomever publicized the statistics a liar, insist that atheism is growing rapidly, use the laughable canard that "Christianity will be gone in a hundred years", (Sorry, Sweetums, that's been said for centuries. It backfired miserably on Voltaire, because one of his homes is owned by the Geneva Bible Society !), and other irrational responses. Anger, denial — from the way these atheists conduct themselves, I would not be surprised to learn of even more acts of violence by atheists. Ironically, they portray themselves as nice people who never bother anyone, that their only difference is that they "lack belief" in God — a transparently disingenuous escape. (For one thing...

In many practical aspects, atheism is a religion. "How can you say that, Cowboy Bob? Atheism is a lack of belief in gods". Yeah, sure. That's the cop-out redefinition, not the real definition . Except not all atheists got the memo , and some are confused. As I was saying, in many practical aspects, atheism is a religion . It is a philosophy of life and conduct, and has many of the trappings of organized religion. Although atheists will tell you that they believe in "reason", they actually have a religion that is based on faith. A lot of it. I can't go there, Girlfriend. In the United States, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism is a religion The US Supreme Court ruled that atheism is a religion . Secular Humanism (a masque for atheism), received comments from the US Supreme Court that it is a religion (one of these groups wanted tax-exempt status as a religion) Atheists adore their religious leaders like Richard "...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  This article will be linked in another about how misotheists and evolutionists try to put Christians and creationists on the defensive, but is a stand-alone example of how logical thinking is useful in daily life. Really. It's not just for apologetics, science, and academia. While social media is a hotbed of irrationality, I challenged someone to see what would happen. It paid off. San Francisco at night image credit: Unsplash / Trevor Wilson The HBO documentary Allen v Farrow  was trending on Twitter. (I don't have or want HBO.) While I liked a few of Woody Allen's movies and a couple of his books long ago, I really have no interest in the subject. Justice may be done and the truth may come out now, but there is no doubt that when he stands before the Creator in judgment, there will be righteous judgment with no appeal. I noticed a comment by Paul Haynes . (I learned later that he is a co-producer of another HBO documentary that I did not watch ca...

The word synchronicity   originated with Carl Jung , was developed by Arthur Koestler , others have offered their views on the concept, was the title of the final studio album by The Police, the title of a 2015 science fiction movie involving time travel, and more. Pseudo-intellectual New Age and postmodern writers (their material is easily obtained on the Web) are fond of synchronicity. I don't cotton to getting into all that, and want to keep it simple: according to synchronicity, coincidences are not what they appear, and may have a sort of supernatural basis. Image credit: Pixabay / wilhei In the early days of the George W. Bush presidency, Rush Limbaugh collected a montage of remarks from different leftists, saying that Bush lacked "gravitas". So many people from different sources all suddenly using a rather uncommon word at the same time?  The same kind of happenstance has occurred many times over the years.   Fascinating. When updating my post about pinhea...

I was going to give these topics a rest, but something came up. On a previous post, Zach made a comment, and I am excerpting it here. His first sentence is an answer to a question I had asked him. Hope you're not embarrassed, but I want to give you a more complete response than the comments section would allow: My lack of belief in the supernatural is pretty much complete - I have never seen any reason to attribute a supernatural cause to phenomena. I suppose I rule out supernatural explanations because once you let one in, where do you stop? I look at an event I do not understand and go immediately to natural causes. Even if I can't figure it out, I still would assume it had a natural explanation. I'm worried that if someone started attributing causes to supernatural events, they would skip over the whole 'natural cause' thing and go straight for the supernatural, because technically everything is potentially explainable by an omnipotent being, no? ...