I found this amusing. Google didn't get the "atheism is not a religion" memo, apparently. When uploading a video and selecting tags, they made suggestions. I grabbed this one:
Various topics that I wanted to make noise about. Some are vitally important, some are a bit of fluff. Atheism, Christianity, Conservatism, Leftists, God, the Bible, the lie of evolution, scams, spam, software, whatever. בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
As most of you know, I, as well as Answers for Hope, have thrown their full support behind Creation Today’s Genesis 3D Movie. The movie is going to present Biblical Creation in theaters, in 3D. I can’t express how proud I am of Eric Hovind and his Creation Today team. They are currently doing a fundraiser for $150,000. I encourage you to consider donating to this project. At this time, only $40,000 more is needed to fully fund the project!
Of course, critics against young earth creation are speaking out. Recently, David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, has spoken out against the movie. I have watched Mr. Silverman’s debates. He is definitely a good speaker, but oftentimes some of the things he says are unsubstantiated or nonsensical.You can read the rest of Jason's comments and invitation for dialogue at "A Response to David Silverman’s Comments on the Genesis 3D Movie".
I have two aspects that I want to discuss here. First, overall Internet safety guidelines and Facebook. Second, Facebook's blatant discrimination and bullying against political Conservatives, conservative Christians, and biblical creationists.
"I know he has been subjected to utterly ridiculous bans and deletions on that obviously biased social interaction site. If Facebook keeps up the liberal censorship and arbitrary punishment of conservatives and creationists, it could lose the market share. It is only a matter of time before another site would step up to take their place. Remember, it didn't take long for FB to make Myspace obsolete."— Radar, in reference to this writer
|Ironically, this was posted on Facebook. Parody of both Facebook and the old Microsoft slogan, "What do you want to do today?"|
|Methinks his "name" is already rubbish, as evidenced by his documented antics.|
This week we've been treated to new scientific research claiming to show that atheists are cleverer than religious people. I say scientific. I say research. It is of course neither; it's just a pre-existing belief dolled up in rags snatched from various reports and stories. Not unlike the Bible. But that hasn't stopped the atheistic blogosphere and Twitterati from effectively saying, "See? Told you we were brainier than you Bible-reading numbskulls."I don't know if Mr. O'Neill claims to be unbiased like many other atheists, but his bias shows up here.
So, what’s gone wrong with atheism? The problem isn’t atheism itself, of course, which is just non-belief, a nothing, a lack of something. Rather it is the transformation of this nothing into an identity, into the basis of one’s outlook on life, which gives rise to today’s monumentally annoying atheism. The problem with today’s campaigning atheists is that they have turned their absence of belief in God into the be-all and end-all of their personality. Which is bizarre. Atheism merely signals what you don’t believe in, not what you do believe in.He is on the right track, as I have seen too many Christophobes on their anti-God jihads, making their alleged "lack of belief" their reason for being. The "lack of belief" thing is a cop-out. The real, established definition of atheism is a denial of the existence of God.
|Sounds just like many modern atheists today. This quote is from Table Talk.|
|Plato and Aristotle doing philosophy and logic stuff.|
The atheist worldview is one that revolves around denial of the self evident, including denial of God's existence, denial of creation, denial of absolute truth and certainty, denial of objective morality, denial of life only from life, denial of information (only) from intelligence, etc. This denial often carries over into debate and discussion on worldview issues. Namely, when an atheist is called out on fallacious argumentation (amidst discussion), they'll often employ a variety of unscrupulous tactics in an attempt to either mask or justify their (faulty) reasoning. That is to say, they'll employ fallacious reasoning in an attempt to deny the fallacious nature of the argument. Here we take a look at some of the specific tactics employed in this regard:You can finish reading this article by sneaking over to "Fallacies about Fallacies".
|That's right, (ir)RationalWiki ran away|
It is not an easy religion to adopt in a society ruled so long by Puritan ethics. There is no false altruism or mandatory love-thy-neighbor concept in this religion. Satanism is a blatantly selfish, brutal philosophy. It is based on the belief that human beings are inherently selfish, violent creatures, that life is a Darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest, that only the strong survive and the earth will be ruled by those who fight to win the ceaseless competition that exists in all jungles - including those of urbanized society. Abhor this brutal outlook if you will; it is based, as it has been for centuries, on real conditions that exist in the world we inhabit rather than the mystical lands of milk and honey depicted in the Christian Bible.
— Burton H Wolfe, Second Introduction to The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey
A Satanist practices the motto, "If a man smite thee on one cheek, smash him on the other!" Let no wrong go unredressed.
Satanism encourages its followers to indulge in their natural desires. Only by doing so can you be a completely satisfied person with no frustrations which can be harmful to yourself and others around you. Therefore, the most simplified description of the Satanic belief is: indulgence instead of abstinence.
— Anton LaVey
"Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you."
. . .
“Mock them, ridicule them in public, don’t fall for the convention that we’re far to polite to talk about religion,” a frustrated Dawkins continued, “Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe, which need to be substantiated. They should be challenged and ridiculed with contempt.”
— Clinton Richard Dawkins on two different occasions
|Modified from morgueFile/luisrock62|
When the atheist is pinned down on the absurdity of subjective morality and has nowhere left to turn, often he'll attempt to point the finger right back at supposed problems with Biblical morality. But there are numerous overarching logical problems with this tactic:Not so fast, Fritz. You'll have to read the rest at the source, "Biblical Morality".
1. It is an attempt to skirt the real issue at hand, which is that objective knowledge of good and evil (knowledge that we all share) cannot be accounted for in the material worldview.
2. More formally, it is a fallacious "Tu Quoque" argument (a.k.a., "the you too argument"). A Tu Quoque is defined as: "A retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others." In this context, the fallacy comes by implying that "Biblical morality is no better!" Once again, this is a fallacious appeal because it doesn't deal with the issue at hand - the fact that objective morals exist.
3. "Objective morality" by definition entails moral knowledge that is not a matter of human opinion, decision, etc. So right from the start it should be plainly understood that Biblical morality entails "external, binding laws," while the atheist has no rational basis whereby he can assert that anything is right or wrong, good or evil. That is to say, there is no way to attain real "moral truth" in the material worldview.
4. It is self refuting for the atheist to claim that any given "act of God" is wrong (such as commanding the Israelites to destroy the wretchedly evil Amalekites in Old Testament times), because the atheist has to presuppose objective morality in order to do so.
Despite these points, the atheist may persist in (fallaciously) arguing that Biblical morality is "also subjective and thereby problematic" because of God's actions described in the Old Testament. The atheist's challenge generally goes something like this:
"There is no objective morality in the Biblical worldview either! God commands Israelites to murder innocent women and slaughter babies! So on one hand god says, 'You Shall Not Murder,' while on the other hand he commands murder and genocide! Therefore, how would you know when something is actually wrong? ...If god told me to go out and start killing children, why would my actions be wrong?"
Here are specific rebuttals to this type of atheistic argument: