July 9, 2010

Money Talks




There was this $20 dollar bill and a $1 dollar bill on the conveyor belt at the downtown Federal Reserve Building. As they were laying there side by side the $1 dollar bill said to the $20 dollar bill, "Hey, where have you been? I haven't seen you in a long time."

The $20 dollar bill replied, "Man, I have been having a ball! I've been traveling to distant countries, going to the finest restaurants, to the biggest and best casinos, numerous boutiques, the mall uptown, the mall downtown, the mall across town and even a mall that was just built. In fact, just this week I've been to a professional NBA game, Rodeo Drive, the all day retreat spa, the top-notch hair salon and the new casino! I have done it all!"

After describing his great travels, the $20 dollar bill asked the $1dollar bill, "What about you? Where have you been?"

The $1 dollar replied, "Well, I've been to the Baptist church, the Methodist church, the Presbyterian church, the Episcopalian church, the Church of God in Christ, the Catholic church, the A.M.E. church, the Disciple of Christ church, the..."

"Wait a minute! Wait a minute!", shouted the $20 dollar bill to the $1 dollar bill. "What's a church?"

July 7, 2010

Like I Said: The Atheist Agenda


“Fear is not in the habit of speaking truth; when perfect sincerity is expected, perfect freedom must be allowed; nor has anyone who is apt to be angry when he hears the truth any cause to wonder that he does not hear it.”

— Publius

People have given me grief over the use of the term "atheist agenda".

"What agenda? We have no agenda! We are just people who believe that there are no gods."


Well, when feeling obstreperous, atheists change the definition of the term. Presumably, it is for the sake of clouding the issue and finding any excuse to make their opponent look bad. The problem is, I have heard so many different definitions of "atheist" (and types of atheist), I almost feel that I need to have each person give their own definition.

Boy, do they get defensive when you say that they have an agenda, gibbering like their imaginary primordial ancestors!

 
But if atheists are just people who happen to believe that there is no God, that nothing exists except for material things (using the most popular definition), why are the obsessed with trolling, ridiculing, whining about Christmas images in public, infiltrating, humiliating, lying, protesting, removing the civil rights of the majority and being a general nuisance?

"Oh, come on, Cowboy Bob! You're confusing atheists with anti-theists!"

Yes, I've had that word game pulled on me, too. Problem is, the alleged atheist who said that was busy bashing Christians.

"You're lying. You made that up!"

Ummm...yeah. Whatever. Logic and proof are things that these militant so-called "new atheists" (the disciples of Richard "Daffy" Dawkins and his ilk) say that they prefer, but are unable to furnish anything supporting their own accusations.

Listen. What's going on here is that I have had astonishingly stupid accusations leveled at m
e by these trolls from the intellectual desert of atheism. Militant atheists are mentally unstable because they are more intent on destroying than on doing anything useful, or even simply leaving people alone. (What happened to the "live and let live, you do your thing and I'll do mine" atheists? You know, the ones that were willing to discuss things intelligently if they felt like discussing their views at all?) Further, I think the militants believe their own nonsense. For instance, one believes that by closing off my comments due to atheist trolling, I negate everything I say. Wow! This clown had better stop smoking stuff, his ability to reason is fried! They also try to browbeat me into opening up the comments again so I can have more trolling. Here's a question for bloggers: If shutting off my comments negates what I have to say, what does comment moderation do, especially if you delete comments you do not like? Just curious. Too bad you cannot answer me.

"Militant atheists? Now you're really on a roll, Cowboy!"

Yep, I made that up, too.

Or did I? From Wikipedia: "Julian Baggini defines militant atheism as "Atheism which is actively hostile to religion", which "requires more than strong disagreement with religion — it requires something verging on hatred and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense and the second is that it is usually or always harmful." Oh, so that's what's going on! You are arrogant and destructive. Militant atheists are annoying to the rational atheists, it seems. A few want them to stop and think before acting up. Also, here is a view from a Christian who has debated Daffy and Hitchens, if you have the courage to read it.

Rev. Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry has told me about learning of atheists' plans to literally destroy his ministry by uploading viruses. Also, they infiltrate the chat rooms and discussion boards. You can imagine the fun that follows.

"Yeah, but we still don't have an agenda, you big liar!"

Well, when Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens write books attacking religion and God, saying that they are evil, people get influenced. Besides, it's "cool" to be an atheist these days. (Except for Peter Hitchens, Chris' brother, who is a Christian.)

By the way, here is one result of the atheist "message of hope".

Then it grows. Another thing I took heat for was the term "organized atheism". Well, atheism is a religion. And the Atheist Alliance has an agenda. And that agenda is to destroy religion. Oh, wait. That article is a bit old. OK, here's one from the World Atheists Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in June of 2010. Many atheists do have an agenda, and want to destroy religion at all costs.

How about this gem?

“It seems to me that the regulative idea that we heirs of the Enlightenment, we Socratists, most frequently use to criticize the conduct of various conversational partners is that of ‘needing education in order to outgrow their primitive fear, hatreds, and superstitions’ ... It is a concept which I, like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own ... The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire ‘American liberal establishment’ is engaged in a conspiracy. The parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students ... When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual to our homophobic students for the same reasons that German schoolteachers in the postwar period assigned The Diary of Anne Frank... You have to be educated in order to be ... a participant in our conversation ... So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours ... I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [domination free] about my handling of my fundamentalist students. Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents ... I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause.” – ‘Universality and Truth,’ in Robert B. Brandom (ed.), Rorty and his Critics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), pp. 21-2.
Audacity, arrogance, uppity, anything else... sounds like war to me.If I wanted to make this article ten times longer (and wanted to waste my time writing to people who will not care in the first place), I could easily copy and paste a great deal of the codswallop that arrogant atheists post. They troll Christian groups, obsessively attack Christians, are vicious and obscene. I cannot even quote some of the things I saw on a Bible group on Facebook. Or going onto discussions of America's founding fathers and lying about them being Deists, at best (certainly not Christians). Not true. Why is that? Also, I've asked before, but it bears repeating: Why don't you attack astrologers, spiritists, Mormons, Satanists and Muslims? Well, I can guess for the last two, you know they'll kill you.

They want to destroy religion, but it cannot be done with reason and logic. So, they resort to trolling tactics and ridicule. If you cannot bring down your opponent by dismantling his logic, then make people laugh at him. But this backfires. Not only are the militant, arrogant atheists irritating people, but they are laughed at themselves. Prov. 13.16

Or, find some other way of bringing your opponent down. They try, but they do not even believe that God, their opponent, even exists. Except when it's convenient to say how much they hate him, then he exists. Go figure. Frankly, I think they are also afraid; deep inside, some of them know that they're wrong. So they react with fear, and fear does not have a habit of speaking the truth, as Publius Cornelius Tacitus observed.

Kind of what I'm doing. I show these lovers of "reason" that they are failing in the most elementary logic skills. I laugh at them when they, who disbelieve in God and have a morality based on the convenience of the moment, dare to judge that I am a "bad Christian". So when I point out their folly, they retaliate.
Prov. 26.11 They are boring and predictable. It is indeed unfortunate that rational discussion, or even respectful silence, is impossible with that lot. If their methodology was rational and respectful, things might be different.

Actually, no, I do not think so. The bigger problem is that it is spiritual. Unfortunately, they cannot — and will not
see it. Rom. 1.20-22, Matt. 15:14, 1 Cor. 2.14, 1 Cor. 4:3-6, Eph. 4:18 John 8.43-45, 2 Cor. 4.4

"You stink, Cowboy Bob!"

Well... Jesus loved me enough to die for my sinful self. And he rose from the dead. You could have his love, but you're full of hate, and you are deceived.

Subscribe in a reader