November 9, 2013

Atheism is a Religion. Google Said So.

When people claim that atheism is not a religion because there is no deity to worship, they are showing their ignorance of philosophy and of religion. Worse, when they invoke the redefinition of "absence of belief", they are not only being ignorant, but this is not intellectually honest. Yes, atheism is a religion, as this post (with its supporting links) demonstrates.

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:

October 22, 2013

Book Review of "The War on Christmas"

This is a modified version of my review from "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman".

The War on Christmas: Battles in Faith, Tradition and Religious Expression edited by Bodie Hodge #waronchristmas

What's it all about? What's happening, anyway? Christmas has been a part of Western culture for many years, and we did not need to worry about people getting "offended" at the use of the "C word". To be blunt, saying "Happy Holidays" is disingenuous; if there were no Christmas, there would be no "Black Friday" to get retailers back into the black, no gift exchanges, no special family gatherings.

We all know what the holiday is! Now, the cashier where you buy your Christmas gifts can, in many cases, get in trouble for saying "Happy Christmas". Businesses have a "Holiday Party" in December and exchange gifts, but they are forbidden to mention Christmas because someone might be offended! (I am very close to start naming names on this at my own employer!) This political correctness stuff is a way to stifle free speech.

No, the video is not associate with the book. I feel strongly about this and wanted to enhance your online experience with some humor and education. And I think it's an excellent light show and great song.

Why the change? Why is Christmas under attack?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

— John 1.1-5, NASB
Now for the book itself. To get moving on this, I used the PDF and have not yet seen a physical copy. However, the PDF was well-rendered. It has colorful illustrations and photos and the layout is not boring. The War on Christmas is 144 pages in length, divided into 23 chapters (plus introductions and a conclusion). Bodie Hodge is the "General Editor", and makes several contributions himself. This makes it very convenient for people who are doing Christmas preparations and activities, but can still get some interesting reading done.

If you are locked into your religious opinions, traditions and church customs, you may have some problems. It can also be a great source of trivia to be able to say things like, "Actually, the "Three Wise Men" are not named in the Bible, and it does not even indicate how many there were. And they probably did not arrive with the shepherds at the manger..." We learn about the origins of many customs and legends. It may distress some people to learn the truth, but people like me are fascinated by the actual history.

The reason and meaning of Christmas is presented. Misconceptions about it being a "pagan holiday" are put to rest, and we are encouraged to celebrate it. The history of Nicholas (who became Santa Claus) is presented, and we are given recommendations on how to deal with the Santa image. 

On a side note, I did not tell my kids that Santa was real. At least, not the one in popular culture. Why should they find out that their parents lied about this, and then doubt the truth of the reason for Christmas as well? My parents misled me on this, and I "found out" for certain when I was doubting Santa's existence anyway. Fortunately, I did not extend this to doubting the birth of Jesus Christ.

There are some other historical and cultural details in The War on Christmas, including the Virgin Birth, the Christmas star, the X of Xmas and more.

"But Cowboy Bob, what does a Christmas book have to do with creation?"

Glad you asked. The war on Christmas is heating up along with the war on creation and the book of Genesis. This book makes the whole reason for Christmas abundantly clear, going back to Genesis. You see, Genesis is the source of all the major Christian doctrines. What is sin? Go back to Genesis. What was the beginning of covering of sin and animal sacrifice? Go back to Genesis. Why do we need a Redeemer? Go back to Genesis. At Christmas, the Creator of the universe became a man so he could become the sacrifice for our sins.

I am not going to give you all the details of the book and spoil it for you, but I do give it high marks. One negative comment, however. The very last chapter (23) had several plugs for Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum. While they are very important resources in the battle against the religion of pagan evolutionism, I found those references distracting. Just kind of read around them, the rest of the chapter has good information.

If you have people on your shopping list that like Christmas material, this should be an excellent gift for them. And for yourself, of course.

Disclosure: I was given an advance copy of The War on Christmas: Battles in Faith, Tradition and Religious Expression, edited by Bodie Hodge, for review purposes, plus a T-shirt that I wasn't expecting. There was no requirement for me to write a favorable review. It is available in paperback at Answers In Genesis, New Leaf Publishing, Barnes and Noble, Amazon and others. 

Quotes used on the "Shrute" "meme" are adapted from the book. 

—Cowboy Bob Sorensen

September 29, 2013

Atheism, Movies, Genesis and Money

It appears that David Silverman of the American Atheists is getting bent out of shape regarding the Genesis 3D movie. According to The Christian Examiner, he said, "As we have seen in nearly every religion in world history, indoctrinated victims of religion will do anything, including pay large sums of money, to have their antiquated beliefs of immortality validated." What's wrong with doing a fundraiser for a project someone believes in?

Anyway, with his silly rant, I would have dismissed him and moved on. After all, it's absurd to claim that you are celebrating "reason" when using question-begging epithets, prejudicial conjecture, fallacious assertions and simple bigotry. Next! 

But wait. Jason Petersen of "Answers for Hope" likes to get into the philosophy aspects of Silverman's remarks. In fact, he is offering him a chance to discuss his atheistic worldview.
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".

September 22, 2013

Bill Nye, Liar for Darwin

Bill "I Play A Scientist On TV" Nye used to be moderately interesting when he did his "Science Guy" children's television show and worked on experimental science. Now he has become a poster boy for anti-creationists. I am unimpressed with his antics because not only should he know better than to spew angry falsehoods, but he is simply a celebrity version of the furious atheists that pa-TROLL the media and Internet. Some of us stand up to these bullying tactics and refuse to be intimidated.

Although Nye is not guilty of every childish antic that I have had the misfortune of encountering, he does use several of these juvenile tricks:
  • Demonizing. I still cannot figure out what atheopaths have to gain by attacking the person instead of dealing with the topic at hand. (Norman the Paranoid Troll lives for this, but cannot back up his assertions — typical of that ilk.) The ad hominem fallacy is often the first line of attack for Darwin's Cheerleaders and militant atheists.
  • Prejudicial Conjecture. Asserting uninformed opinions as fact, often being humiliated when proved wrong. They deny that they're wrong, though, and humiliate themselves further. I can't count the times someone has made an absurd comment after reading the title or first few lines of an article. Is it because s/he is afraid of facing the unpleasant truths of the article or its supporting links?
  • Straw Man. Putting words in someone's mouth or attempting to make people defend a position that they do not hold. Sure, tear that bad boy down! But the real object of your rage, the one you did not address, is over there, Poindexter. It is both tragic and hilarious when atheists become self-appointed experts in theology and say, f'rinstance, "Ken Ham is lying about Genesis!" Uh, yeah. And you are the one to catch it, but none of the tens of thousands of readers (many are far more qualified than you are) were able to see this. Nice going. Give me your name, mailing address and credit card number so I can send you a nice box of chocolates.
  • Generalization. Like Haywire and his clown car of hate at the BCSE forums, they make assertions that are insulting to thinking people, such as, "Creationists are not scientists, and they are liars". First, back it up. Second...oh, please. How dumb do you think people are?
  • Lack of information. People will make assumptions and draw conclusions that are often done in haste or hate. If they had done their homework, they may have kept their traps shut and saved themselves some humiliation.
  • Philosophical bias. Many people do not think it through, but science has a philosophical basis. Saying that "evolution is science" is false. Origins science is historical in nature. In the discussions on origins we all argue from our worldviews. Atheists and evolutionists do not admit this (or even know it, sometimes), but they are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves.
  • Combinations of fallacies. People who are afraid of the truth or motivated by hate (or both) often use several fallacies in the same rant. For example, claiming that "all young Earth creationists are liars" (yes, I've seen it done) because they present evidence refuting evolution based on science, theology or both shows an amazing lack of intellectual depth. It is demonizing the creationists, using philosophical bias (that evolution is true, there is no God, or whatever), simplistic ad hominem, generalizing, creating a straw man and more.

Sure is a lot of work to cling to their pride and deny the truth of the gospel.

Bill Nye and Bill Maher act like they are clever, but in reality, they are not only embarrassing themselves. Thinking people should be insulted by their foolishness. Too bad evolutionists are unwilling to show respect and allow other people to have differing views. Worse, their "protection" of evolution stifles the development of science.

September 7, 2013

Facebook Futility — Observations and Suggestions

"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
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.

Facebook has changed over the years. Along with other social media, they grab the rights to use your photos. But the rules change frequently, so that could be outdated and modified already. One problem is that Facebook requires people to use their real names and information. The reason that is a problem is that it is a privacy concern, and haven of identity thieves.

An article on safety for young people makes sense for everyone. More than that, Facebook is not your friend. They want too much information. Do not give it to them. Although the powers at Facebook don't like it, people use fake names (many obviously fake, even obscene) on Facebook all the time, and have multiple accounts. For some, the only possible reason for them to exist is to be offensive.

Seems like a good idea to me.

The drawbacks are that your friends cannot find you unless you tell them ahead of time. "Yes, my name is John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt. Look for me under Jim Smith, here's the e-mail address that I used when I signed up, search for that..." Another drawback is if Facebook catches on and says, "We think this is a fake account. Verify your name".

Then you activate your auxiliary account. Which can be a hassle if you have 500 "friends" and need to make contact all over again, convincing them that yes, it's really you under this other name. Hopefully, you used the link under "Account Settings" and backed up your information so you can keep your photos, friends list and so on.

Ironically, this was posted on Facebook. Parody of both Facebook and the old Microsoft slogan, "What do you want to do today?"
 You have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages for yourself.

No matter what, I strongly recommend that you "lock down" your settings to at least "friends only". This includes your friends list. I don't think anybody needs to know who your friends are. Even other "friends". Some people will "friend up" almost anybody, and I think that's not such a good idea. You can get spies or pretenders.

Play it safe, people! Identity theft, fake friends, stalkers and so on. Think about it.

And now, the discrimination of Facebook.

More than a few of us are becoming increasingly exasperated with the increasing bigotry, discrimination and hypocrisy of Facebook. It is without legitimate cause. As Radar said in the quote at the top of the page, this can backfire and Facebook can lose market share.

One Admin on "The Question Evolution Project", under his own name, quoted an atheist and said something to the effect of, "Nice bit of prejudicial conjecture". The poor persecuted victim complained, and the Admin was given a 12-hour ban on posting, even though his comment violated none of their "standards". The next day, in an unrelated incident, another Admin was given the same penalty for disputing with an atheopath and showing the errors of his logic. We agree that if we foul up and deserve punishment, we'll "man up" and take it. But not this injustice.

This caused me to call for a no-nonsense ban policy: Instead of trying to show where the logic failed, or the lack of civility, or whatever, people are most likely going to be banned outright. We do not need to have all of the Admins put in the "time out" corner because Facebook took the side of a diaper-filler (it's happened to other Pages I could name).  Besides, what we're about and our rules are in the "About" section. We had this reply:

This kind of nonsense happens to individuals as well as Pages.

Of course, if atheist-run Facebook wasn't so blatantly discriminatory and hypocritical, such things would not be needed. Naturally, the secularists will say, "No, it's not true", even though Christophobes and leftists are getting away with filthy content, and some names are too shameful to even write down. Edit: Hatetheists attacked me for this post, ignoring the pertinent material and instead ridiculing things that were never said. These are the kinds of people to keep out of your stuff.

I believe that quite a few people are going to jump ship when a new social media service comes along with decent features, is consistent in applying its rules and won't steal your stuff.

September 5, 2013

Debates, Stalkers, Bullies and Sore Losers

Too many modern atheists and pretend agnostics are more intent on ridiculing Christians (especially creationists) than in simply going on about their business. It's been rightly observed, though, that if an atheist sees a gang of young men coming toward him, s/he will breathe easier if they're carrying Bibles.

Screen shots are "Fair Use" for educational purposes. Also, Twitter's "Tweets" are public.

To display their intellectual prowess, some want to engage in "debates". I said "debates" because they do not like structured, moderated debates, but prefer a free-for-all where changing the subject, bad logic and abuse are their modus operandi. 

I have noticed that, with the exception of Internet public debate forums, when Christians are doing their own thing, atheists jump in and start raising a fuss. (Sometimes, they even pretend to be Christians in order to infiltrate groups set up specifically for Christians.) When they give the "I'm so much smarter than you st00pid dumb Xtians" nonsense, most will back off from debate challenges, especially about creation and evolution. Perhaps it is because they know that creationists win those debates.

Most just want to express hate. And God forbid (heh!) that someone dares to express an unflattering opinion of an atheist stalker bully.

Sometimes, someone is so desperate to malign someone else, they resort to attacks that turn around to bite them:
When challenged, they play the victim card. Some are even outrageous enough to lie and say that they are being persecuted, but in fact, they are the ones doing the persecuting. (Persecution and discrimination from atheists has been shown on this Weblog many times.) I have seen them remove their comments or threads (including comments that were removed from this Weblog when someone realized what a fool he was making of himself, back when I accepted comments). The few atheists who want to go on about their business and will discuss their views, or not, seem to be dwindling.

Apologist Jason Petersen has had some debates, but does not give in to the "free-for-all" verbal debates where it is one against many on a Skype call. Yeah, sounds fair, huh? He does written debates. When some of these cyber bullies lose the debates, they attack the person and even begin stalking as well as libeling. I know the feeling all too well.

Methinks his "name" is already rubbish, as evidenced by his documented antics.

Jason has some experiences to relate with dishonest bullies. First, "More Examples of How Some Unbelievers Value Ridicule Over Honesty", followed by "More Examples of How Some Unbelievers Value Ridicule Over Honesty Part 2". The latest installment is "An Informal Debate with Some Atheists". He has some links embedded to further document his accounts.

September 1, 2013

Atheists Embarrassed by Atheists

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-intellectual attention whore, bragging about his alleged suicide attempts and reading Nietzsche. One time, he ranted that all Christians should be burned at the stake. Strong talk for a nutty 15-year-old, but I pretty much wrote it off; he was no threat to anyone.

Images are "Fair Use" for educational purposes.

Today, we have atheists wanting Christians killed:

They take the advice of Richard "I Hide From Debating Creationist Scientists Like Bill Nye Does" Dawkins, and approve of ridicule:

Lying is allowed and applauded on Planet Atheopath:


In all this, many modern militant misotheists maintain that they stand for "reason" and "logic", but do precious little to successfully engage in those activities. Atheist Brendan O'Neill wrote an article for The Telegraph, expressing his own displeasure. He has some interesting insights.

But there are a couple of problems in it. First, he still could not resist the urge to throw in a cheap shot about the Bible that was irrelevant to the discussion: 
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.

Also, he insists on the new, convenient redefinition of atheism, "lack of belief":
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.

O'Neill has some flaws, but his exasperation with many other atheists is understandable. Some just want to go about their business, but too many others are reinforcing the public opinion that atheists are the least-liked, least-trusted group in America. And probably many other places. Take a look at his article and see.

August 13, 2013

The "Hitler was a Christian" Slander

“What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right?
I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” 
—Richard Dawkins

Sounds just like many modern atheists today. This quote is from Table Talk.
For some reason, many atheists want to "give" Adolph Hitler to Christianity. "Hitler was a Christian!", they gloat. But that is the opposite of the truth.

"He said he was a Christian, Cowboy Bob!"

Ummm...yeah. How often do you believe politicians, especially those that have murdered millions of people and were obvious maniacs? Get that? He was a politician, striving for power. Also, who was Jesus to him, what was God, what was Christianity to him? The same problem exists with many atheists today — they redefine the terms to suit their own ends.

I have some ideas on why Christophobes try to pretend that Hitler was a Christian. First, to make the atrocities of the greatest mass murderers of history, the atheists Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot and so on, seem — well, not so bad, really. Second, it's one of the weird stretches of atheistic logic that I've encountered: "Hitler was a Christian, so Christianity is bad, so there is no God!" No, not in those words, but pretty doggone close. Third, it's motivated by hate, and they'll find any excuse, no matter how stupid and easily disproved, to say something bad about Christians.

Here are some articles for your perusal. Take a special look at the dishonest comments by Fergus at the bottom of the article, and how he's soundly trounced at "Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions — The Darwin–Hitler connection".

Next, "Hitler Was Not a Christian: Refutation of Atheist Slander".

After that, "Was Hitler a Christian?"

Then you can read "Did Hitler Rewrite the Bible?"

New: "The 'Hitler was a Christian' Mythos.

If you have time for something even longer, go to "From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist - Responding to Richard Dawkins on the Issue of Atheism, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Communism and Nazism"

You really should bookmark this page and share it with those people who show their ignorance and bigotry by saying that Hitler was a Christian.

We also have a video to see, and it has a great challenge to fundamentalist atheists:

And for those who think this is the "No True Scotsman"'re dead wrong:

August 6, 2013

Atheism and Fallacies

One of my favorite topics is logical fallacies. Many atheists and evolutionists love to attack Christians and creationists, claiming that they believe in "reason". They demonstrate that they do not understand even rudimentary logic, and it turns out that Christians use logic better than their attackers! And why not? The laws of logic come from God. Since the atheistic worldview is fundamentally flawed, irrational and self-refuting, when an atheist and/or evolutionist uses logic, he or she is tacitly admitting that his or her worldview does not work, and has to borrow from the biblical creationist's worldview!

Plato and Aristotle doing philosophy and logic stuff.

Even when we show atheists that they are being illogical, it must be in the Atheist Code© to never admit that a Christian is correct over something of consequence. Instead, they increase their attacks. Many times, in very sneaky ways.
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".

July 28, 2013

Atheism, Libel, Cowardice and (ir) RationalWiki

Most of the Internet atheists that I have encountered are big and bold about being "rational". But they are not content to believe that they are smarter than us st00pid dumb Xtians. No, they need to troll and attack people. (I fully believe that many do this because they are simply childish bullies attempting to bolster their egos.) For example, this gem appeared at "The Question Evolution Project":
This was a simple-minded attack, incorporating Bunches-o-Fallacies® and emotionalism, but no rational thought. They like to offer opinions based on titles, introductions and summaries, but usually ignore entire articles and supporting links.

I have said before that I can see no valid reason for demonizing Christians (and especially creationists). Such immature behavior not only helps illustrate the natural failings of the religion of atheism, but increases the negative public perception of atheists. Indeed, these irrational and emotion-driven atheists make their own "poes". The libelous hate speech site (ir) RationalWiki does not use reason. Instead, any child with an agenda can use this as a way to attack people instead of using an intellectual approach to deal with issues. Those who have the time and interest to squash annoying insects can do so. Or we can hire lawyers for defamation. Richard Dawkins, the atheist hate monger and their equivalent of America's race baiter Al Sharpton, has famously avoided debates with William Lane Craig and with Bible-believing creationists. (His vituperative bullying has begun to put people off; he has failed, and a few atheists with some sense are showing some civility.) But we still have to deal with Dawkinsites who want to sound big and bad, but are "all hat, no cattle".

Many atheists tell us that they're brilliant because they're atheists (a logical fallacy right there), but they will not back up their claims. The ones who want to debate should follow through and make a defense for atheism. If I was an atheist, I'd be embarrassed by these types. F'rinstance:
That's right, (ir)RationalWiki ran away
Let's focus on that last one. That den of defamation was issued a challenge to debate the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" from Creation Ministries International. (My haters are furious that CMI saw fit to use my video on their site, by the way.) It's not something that can be quickly dismissed by using canned responses and throwing links from propaganda sites like Talk.Origins. No, people actually have to put some effort into it.

If I'm reading it right, (ir)RationalWiki editor Fergus "Brave Sir Robin" Mason lost an initial debate with VivaYeshua (he's fared badly elsewhere). When reason reared its head, "he bravely turned his tail and fled". Fergus Mason was challenged, accepted and then backed down. Click here to read more.

Der Narr spricht in seinem Herzen:
»Es gibt keinen Gott!«
Sie handeln verderblich, und abscheulich ist ihr Tun;
da ist keiner, der Gutes tut.

July 20, 2013

Atheism, Satanism and Dawkins

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

Previously, I have written about common elements between atheism and Satanism. I must specify again that this is regarding LaVey's Satanism, and not the idiots who sacrifice helpless animals (or even humans) to Satan. LaVey did not believe that Satan was an actual being. His Satanism emphasized self-gratification. Indeed, Aleister Crowley "Great Beast 666" restated an old expression as, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". (Yes, he was a Satanist of sorts: "It seems I possessed a theology of my own, which was to all intents and purposes, Christianity.  My Satanism did not interfere with it at all.") Since they are essentially hedonists, is there any doubt that a Satanist will deceive in order to attain his own ends?

Anton LaVey attempted to make Satanism respectable and intellectual, and drew heavily from atheist Ayn Rand. Atheists are famous for their pseudo-intellectual posturing and sneering that they are somehow more intelligent than "theists". But while proclaiming to believe in "reason", they use abundant logical fallacies, childish name-calling, profanities, and outright lies in order to achieve their own ends. Sexual harassment is a problem in the atheist "community", which would not be surprising from a Satanist seeking his own pleasure.

In the quote at the beginning of this article, Burton Wolfe indulged in prejudicial conjecture (misleading assertions without knowledge or support) so he could affirm Satanism and misrepresent what the Bible teaches. Richard Dawkins does this kind of thing, and Dawkinsites repeat his ex cathedra pronouncements without actually thinking about them. Indeed, he uses logical fallacies and even demonstrates his own lack of knowledge about the nature of science in his efforts to destroy Christianity. It is readily apparent in his blatant hypocrisy cited earlier.

"Why would anyone want to destroy Christianity, Cowboy Bob?"

The oldest lies came from the beginning of creation. First, "Did God really say..." followed by a distortion of what God said. Then, "You shall be like God" (Genesis 3.1,5).

Modified from morgueFile/luisrock62
The sin of Lucifer was pride. Satanists reject God and embrace their selfish desires through pride. Atheists pretend that God does not exist, and bow down to "reason" and "science", using self-serving redefinitions of those words and of "reality" as well. For that matter, many liberal "Christians" weasel their way out of believing what the Bible says so that they can do what they will. People have been blinded by the lies of Satan (2 Cor. 4.4), and want to become their own gods. Thinking they're clever, they fall for the lies of the Great Deceiver. No wonder they wish to destroy the truth.

June 6, 2013

Atheism, the Bible and Subjective Morality

One of the most simplistic and annoying tricks that atheists pull is their unwillingness to answer questions about knowledge and morality. When pressed, they resort to dodging the question, throwing the question back in the face of the one asking, denying what they said, use logical fallacies, accuse others of fallacies and more (this MP3 is a good example). I believe the reason for such behavior is simple: They know that God's ultimate standard is true, but do not want to face it. However, their subjective morality is fundamentally flawed and will self-destruct. Attempting to blame God and make him the bad guy by quote mining the Bible is a massive fail. So is attempting to place your own arbitrary, subjective morality on God.

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:

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:
Not so fast, Fritz. You'll have to read the rest at the source, "Biblical Morality".

Subscribe in a reader