March 31, 2012

Atheism, Logic and True Reason

Buona sera. Reports from the (Un) Reason Rally of atheists (a religious gathering to celebrate that they hate religions and do not believe in anything, go figure). The hypocrisy of the rally and especially of Dawkins is documented. Their intolerance of others had been made abundantly clear (again), as is the encouragement to engage in bullying. Not that they needed encouragement, capice? Some of us have been pointing out that these people who claim to love reason, logic and so on are not very good at those very things. The rally did not have arguments in favor of atheism. Instead, just anti-Christian invective and empty rhetoric. I'll mention intolerance again for emphasis.

In a discussion at Evidence 4 Faith's March 25, 2012 podcast, Keith Kendrix had several guests in the studio who attended the rally. I found it to be very interesting, and suggest that it is well worth an hour of your time. You can click on the link above and go to the "Podcasts" link, or download the MP3 here.

But wait, there's more! If you act now, I will include, absolutely free, Greg Koukl's commentary on the use (or the lack thereof) of reason at the rally. This slightly edited excerpt (below) is from the Stand to Reason podcast from March 25, 2012. After you hear the clip, I suggest that you download and listen to the entire 2-1/2 hour podcast. There are some interesting calls, and the third hour is an interview with Tom Gilson, an editor of True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism. This is a low-cost e-book. (Don't have a reader? No worries, you can download free software from Amazon to take care of that problem.)

Christians, we do not need to be intimidated by atheistic bluster and bullying. Reason comes from God, after all. Some of the greatest scientists and intellectuals of all time have been Bible-believers. It's time to stop surrendering to the loud, illogical minority and reclaim our ground. And yes, Christians need to read True Reason as well. And show that we are capable of using true reason.

March 30, 2012

BULLY for Dawkins at (Un) Reason Rally

Buon giorno. I can't stand bullies. Partly because I endured it as a child. Now I intervene. Sometimes, I even give it back. Bullies should appreciate getting some of their own rotten treatment, capice? But right now, the best thing I can do is point out their foolishness and tell the truth about the angry misotheists and their "Me, too!" yap dogs that actually think that hatred is a valid form of logic.

What did we get at the so-called "Reason Rally?" Lots of whining, hypocrisy, appeals to emotion, rampant hatred, trashing of the vague "religion" boogieman — but nothing resembling actual "reason". Do you know how these kinds of atheists refute Christian logic? Just declare them wrong or find a rescuing device (an excuse) to get out of it; the conclusions reached do not agree with atheistic presuppositions. From there, many Internet atheists resort to bullying tactics. But not logic, because their logic is fundamentally flawed.

Atheists are the least-liked and least-trusted group. Do we really wonder why? Instead of working on their image and their conduct, Richard "Daffy" Dawkins incites mockery, ridicule — and even bullying. Nice going, Dick!
Richard Dawkins has done it again. And this time he has really placed atheists in a pickle. Do they follow the abusive admonition of one of their idols, and thereby reject reason; or do they continue to teach their children that bullying is wrong? Something has got to give here. With mentors like Dawkins, it's getting tougher and tougher in America for atheists to maintain a consistency between their doctrine and their practice.
The rally in Washington on Saturday was supposed to embolden atheists in their positions. Instead, it has created a real dilemma for atheists who hold personal convictions against bullying. How would Dawkins have atheists treat religious people in the public square? "Mock them, ridicule them in public." Ouch. That one will come back to bite him many times over.

March 28, 2012

Hypocrisy at the (Un) Reason Rally

Tweaked a few hours after posting.

Buona sera. I have had many experience in dealing with atheistic hypocrisy and double standards, so there is not much that surprises me. And yet, I am still amazed by how they cannot even see that they are being hypocritical.

There are times when atheists portray themselves as harmless people who never bother anyone, and simply do not believe the way theists believe. So...
  • It must not be the atheists that troll YouTube material by Christians with ridiculous and often obscene comments, and vote down the video
  • It must not be the atheists who troll Christian groups in Facebook
  • It must not be the atheists who troll Amazon and vote down Christian books that they have not read
  • It must not be the atheists who are protesting more and more, trying to secularize America
  • It must not be the atheists who are trying to get the teaching of creation science and Intelligent Design outlawed, and pressure lawmakers with misinformation campaigns
  • It must not be the atheists who write Weblogs misrepresenting Christians (especially creationists), with equivocation, arbitrary assertions and sometimes by flat-out lying
  • It must not be the atheists who are attacking creationists and saying that we are wrong, even though they have no idea what we actually believe and teach. Hint: try actually reading the material, watching the videos and so on without looking for any little excuse to typo-pounce or some other lame excuse to say, "Gotcha!" Actually pay attention to the message instead of embarrassing yourselves with such blatant misrepresentation
  • It must not be the atheists who are trolling Weblogs by Christians, trying to pick fights and leave nasty comments
  • It must not be the atheists who are trolling Christians (especially creationists) on Twitter for the same reasons
What utter hypocritical, childish rubbish.

I posted a modified image from "Family Guy" in an atheist forum (yeah, obnoxious of me, I know, but I was making a point). If you've seen the show, it's the one where a doctor determined that Peter was retarded. He had a chart. On top was "average", followed by "retarded" with Peter's name just below, followed by "creationists" at the bottom. I took Peter's name out and put in a picture of B. Hussein Obama where it says "retarded", and changed the bottom line to "atheists".


A hatetheist commented,
"Nice photoshop. Thankfully, I've seen this episode of Family Guy and know it actually says Creationists at the bottom. As to why Obama is there *shrugs*
Can't even make your own original jokes? Have to steal the 'atheist's'?"
First, it wasn't Photoshop, it was Second, "thankfully"? Who do you have to thank, anyway? More than that, why? Third, the Obama thing was in there because I felt like it, capice? Fourth and best, you flaming hypocrite, atheists are constantly modifying Christian art for the purposes of mockery! This strengthens my theory that atheists are intolerant of anyone questioning their sanity or making jokes; they can give them, but they can't take them.

The (Un) Reason Rally claimed that it was not there to ridicule "religion". And yet, they had a good time doing it. More than that, Richard "Daffy" Dawkins urged people to (wait for it...) mock the religious people. Here is more on his hypocrisy (article dated March 25, 2012):
At yesterday’s Reason Rally, the acknowledged headline speaker was the famous Richard Dawkins. And Dawkins, true to form, managed to display both hypocrisy and irrationality in the course of his fifteen minute speech.

To set the stage, let’s remember the promise the Reason Rally organizers made to us on their website:
Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?
No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years (and beyond) and motivating those in attendance to become more active. While speakers have the right to say what they wish, the event is indeed a celebration of secular values.
Read the rest of "The Hypocrisy of Richard Dawkins" here.

March 26, 2012

Logic Lessons: No True Atheist

Buona sera. OK, you caught me. The fallacy is actually called the "No True Scotsman", a term coined by atheist Antony Flew before he renounced atheism. This fallacy is a darling of atheists who use it incorrectly against Christians.

NTS is not an actual fallacy per se, but rather an illustration of other fallacious thinking, such as "moving the goalposts". Simply stated, the claim is made about someone's actions or character. When an exception is found, it is waved off because the person is not genuinely part of the group:
  • No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
  • But Angus MacDonald puts sugar in his porridge!
  • Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
It is simple enough. Someone makes an assertion. When an exception to that assertion is made, an excuse is made to counter the exception.

When used against Christians, it is often incorrect, arbitrary and superficial, ignoring important elements about Christianity. When we are accused of resorting to the NTS fallacy because we say that someone was not really a Christian, they are being superficial and ignorant of the teachings of the Bible. We point out that someone may claim to be a Christian, but are not living in a manner consistent with Biblical teachings. Further, most Christians do not accept such people as one of ours. (The ridiculous abusive ad hominem and a Straw Man fallacies to insist that Hitler was a Christian, as if to negate all of Christianity, is beyond the pale, capice?) When we say that some people may claim to be Christians, but their words and conduct to not match the teachings of Scirpture — this is not resorting to the NTS fallacy. Rather, it is giving a fuller explanation why such accusations (i.e., "Hitler was a Christian") do not have merit.

But if you point out the NTS fallacy when atheists are guilty, watch out! I had an interesting encounter that illustrates this. Selected comments:
  • I said, " Westboro strikes me as a non-Christian cult. I would not associate with those people."
  • An angry atheist said, "Westboro Baptist Church, biblical literalists, are not Christians...I've heard it all now. Talk about no true Scotsman. No Christian is dropped faster than those that bring bad press."
  • A friend added, "OK, you want to lump Westboro in with Christians? When Christians who know their Bible, say that Westboro is not acting in accordance to the Bible? We have been through this! You do not like it AT ALL when we call Stalin a true atheist. You do all kinds of gymnastics to distance yourself from the atrocities of atheist regimes, but you do not hesitate to throw in false religion in with true Christianity. What a double standard."
  • Angry atheist number two said, "Say Stalin was an atheist all you like. It's when you start saying he did what he did BECAUSE of his atheism you start being wrong."
  • Angry atheist number three chimed in, "Stalin didn't hold up a book about atheism while he was yelling at gay people." 
Note the additional logical fallacies to justify their "No True Atheist" fallacy! First, to say that the atheism of the greatest mass-murderers of all time had nothing to do with their actions is ludicrous even on the surface. But, if you want evidence:

That last comment ("Stalin didn't hold up a book about atheism while he was yelling at gay people") was amazingly absurd, equivocating the murderous rampages of atheist tyrants with Christianity. Also, it was a Straw Man argument.

Edit: Author S.E. Cupp is considered a bad atheist (or not a "true atheist") because she is not vicious; it's the opposite direction for the fallacy. Click here for a shining example of the "No True Atheist" fallacy.

The lessons here are to (obviously) be careful of someone making excuses so that they can insist on their arbitrary pronouncement. The second is to make certain that we are not guilty of making the same error ourselves. And Christians do not need to be intimidated by unwarranted accusations.

March 25, 2012

Are Atheists Control Freaks?

Revised 8-20-2012.

Buon giorno. I have been wanting to call CARM Radio and ask Matt Slick if he supports my hypotenuse hypothesis: Atheists are control freaks. I have had several instances of control freakness that cause me to wonder if it is more than just a couple of individuals that indulge.

My latest experience is typical, so here we go.

An atheist decided to try to get to me by insulting my creation science Weblog. (Yeah. Playing the Ridicule Card or otherwise attempting to insult and hurt someone is a frequent opening gambit in lieu of actual thought.) I told him (her?) that it's a Weblog. There are links to assorted articles, many of which are of a technical nature. I dared him (her?) to actually read and debunk the science on the site.

So, I rejected his insult and essentially told him to "put up or shut up".

Eventually, he said that he would "have a glance at it". Then I received, "Okay, had a read through the first section. First, what are your impressions of the article, Bob? Give me a quick summary and your opinion on it."

Notice how he tried to flip the thing back onto me? Do not want. See, atheists (and evolutionists) like this must control the conversation and the subject. Later, he was demanding my summary of the article.

I replied, "
You tried to turn my challenge around on me, and I'm not having it. All I did was challenge people to read and attempt to discredit the science at, and you demanded that I write an article summary so 'we can discuss it'. Why? So you can argue with ME about what the author said? Get real. Atheists are such control freaks and manipulators." Yes, I admit to being a bit irked.

That's right, I let him know that I was not only annoyed at the attempt at manipulation, but I was not fooled by it. His next response was, "If I wanted to spend my life debunking creationist websites, I'd start my own blog. I'm more interested in discussion with people, not articles." Nice attempt to save the wounded dignity.

First, I am expected to let the atheist take control. Then, I am supposed to discuss an article. The hilarious part was that he implied that he had the ability to debunk the linked articles on anthropology, astronomy, paleontology, microbiology, biology, astrophysics, geology, biometrics, genetics, eugenics, logic, and more. I have seen similar bluster before, and receive hot air in response. I ask them why they are afraid of reading such material. Perhaps they will see that atheism, materialism, uniformitarianism, naturalism and other presuppositions fail miserably as worthwhile explanations. I can hope that they will see the truth of Psalm 53.1-3, Prov. 1.7 and Romans 1.20-22. If they will drop their misotheist presuppositions and honestly listen, there is still a chance that they can learn about the love of God and the sacrifice of Christ.

Subscribe in a reader