Stormbringer's Thunder

Buon giorno. Every year, atheists and "humanists" (those are atheists who want legal standing as a religion ) ramp up their attacks on Christmas. The 2011 attacks have already started, but this time, they're playing the "discrimination" card . (Some complain of discrimination in employment and in other places where it is illegal to ask, or make a prerequisite for employment, someone's worldview. News flash, Poindexter: Clam up. You either offered this irrelevant information as a matter of pride, or the discrimination probably did not happen.) With the growing snarling of atheists, their antics to interfere with the rights, sensibilities and beliefs of the majority of the people — how can anyone honestly wonder why atheists are the least trusted and least respected "minority" in the country? [ 1 , 2 ] ( Edit: In my experience, and in the experience of others to whom I have spoken, atheists are also the least honest people.) It must be something to b

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