July 29, 2017

Fake Science: Canaanites and the Bible

When it comes to sensationalistic fake news that denigrates the Bible, the secular science industry is relentless. Ever see those documentaries that crop up around Christmas and Easter where producers round up unasinous liberal scholars to malign the Bible? Not only do they ignore conservative scholars and focus on the odd ones, but stories like the tomb of Jesus and so on are discredited or forgotten. This bit of disingenuous journalism is of the same pathetic caliber. But I forgot, lying is in the nature of secularist leftists.


Secular science news industry lies about Bible history and Canaanites
Mostly made at Image Chef
Those of us who actually believe the Bible and know about how it has been supported time and again through history, science, and archaeology have to endure the constant attacks on the Word of God. It's one thing to disbelieve and offer arguments or evidence as to why not, but it's another to act like an evolutionary scientist that makes up his or her own "facts", and ignores pertinent data. What really takes the rag off the bush is that these secular science sidewinders are strip mining the context and lying about the Bible so they can claim that it is not true. Worse, people believe the press and "scientists" without doing critical thinking.

These jaspers said that Canaanites are still living according to DNA research, so the Bible must be wrong. (Didn't exactly read it, didja, Poindexter?) Using their same logic, Neanderthal genes are present today, so they continue to exist as well. Yes, this passes for "reasoning" nowadays.
In a rush to discredit the Bible, certain reporters failed to research all that the Bible says about Canaanites.

The Bible says such-and-such, but what REALLY happened, according to science, is this-and-that. Reporters sometimes fill in this boilerplate with the latest published findings of science. In a recent case, Science Daily teases with a set-up about the Canaanites: “But who were they and what ultimately happened to them? Were they annihilated like the Bible says?” You know what’s coming next:
To read the rest, click on "Reporters Disparage Bible with Fake History". ADDENDUM: Creation Ministries International also posted an article, "Canaanite DNA disproves the Bible? — Or, Canaanite DNA disproves media’s ability to read the Bible".


  

July 24, 2017

Clinton Richard Dawkins "Deplatformed" in Berkeley

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the high priests of atheism is C. Richard Dawkins. (His tinhorn fans consider themselves "New Atheists", but the only thing "new" about them is their extreme hatred and intolerance, dishonesty, lack of thinking skills, redefining "reason" and "rational" to mean "naturalist" and "atheist", and a passel of other flaws that make them detestable to the rest of the American population. I reckon professing atheists of yore would be embarrassed by this lot.) Atheopaths rally behind Dawkins since he gives a façade of intellectualism, although atheism cannot withstand true logic. To put it another way, he's considered brilliant by people who already hate God and are digging up excuses to justify their rebellion against their Creator. Dawkins is angry, hypocritical, and mean-spirited in general, but is surprised that people do not like him. In the formerly great Britain, other scientists also have a dim view of him. That should tell him something.


Dawkins disinvited Berkeley free speech
Background image of shattering atheist symbol courtesy of Why?Outreach
Atheists and leftists are champions of free speech — but only as long as it's their kind of speech, as is readily apparent. Free speech was a big deal at University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s, but they have protested appearances by people who say things they dislike — lately, they have done this with violence. The reason? They reject the content as well as the people that oppose leftist views. Colleges used to be places that taught people how to think, which includes dealing with opposing views. Now they have safe zones so they can be protected from challenges and concepts they find threatening, poor snowflake darlings.

Ride with me on a side trail for a spell. Way back when, I visited a Ku Klux Klan rally in a small town near Kalamazoo, Michigan. The white supremacists were well-mannered, and the protesters were borderline violent. I wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, defending their right to free speech, even though I despise what they promote. Someone responded to my letter and justified the juvenile actions of the protesters, saying, "Do you know what they teach?" Yes, yes I do. He conveniently missed the point of what I was saying: we can't shut them down because we don't like them, and we could be next.

Now, let's get back to the Dr. Dawkins subject. He was invited to speak in Berkeley, but not by the college itself. He was going to be making chin music on atheism and his "excellent new book on science". (The title, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Realist, implies philosophy and metaphysics more than actual science, but I digress.) He was "deplatformed" (did that word even exist five years ago?) from speaking because he said harsh things about Islam. Interesting how "progressives" adore homosexuality as well as Islam, but that religion not only rejects homosexuality, with some adherents actively killing them. Leftists have a dilemma, don't they? The leftists didn't check to see if Dawkins spoke the truth, did they?

Listen, I don't cotton to Dawkins. I think he is an irrational, hateful sidewinder that lies about God and Christians under the nebulous word "religion". He needs to humble himself and repent before the God he claims does not exist, as should his followers. I also believe he should have been allowed to speak. The winds of political correctness can shift quickly. While atheists are notorious for suppressing the free speech of creationists and other Christians, that does not justify my taking a "serves you right" approach. And there may still be a few intelligent atheists who would join with others in protecting such rights against governmental interference and obstruction by confused people who follow trends. I'm not saying that everyone should give everyone a platform in every circumstance when people want to present their views. In a public setting where free speech was promoted in the past, though, denying Dawkins the opportunity to speechify is hypocritical.

Here are some articles that I thought you might like. Note: In no wise do I approve of the full contents of each article.

July 9, 2017

Incoherent "Reasoning" from Silverman in Debate

James White shows that atheist David Silverman is incoherent

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This 2010 debate between atheist David Silverman and Christian Dr. James White illustrates how things that are considered logical from an atheistic perspective are, in reality, incoherent. Silverman used many fallacies:

  • Argument from outrage (essentially, the New Testament is evil because he doesn't like what it says)
  • Straw man arguments (when he was called on this, he promptly redefined the meaning of a straw man for his own convenience)
  • Appeal to motive plus some ad hominem remarks against Dr. White
  • Equivocation
  • For a debate on the New Testament, he went back to the Old Testament several times. Especially Genesis, which helps illustrate why biblical creationists affirm its truth
  • Several others that I'll leave to the listener to observe
James White clearly showed that David Silverman's arguments for the nature of good and evil are irrational, standing on the biblical worldview when he calls something evil, but Silverman also relies on subjective, personal preference as a basis for morality.

Some of the debate involved matters of theology. I do not get into deeper theological matters with misotheists, as they are not only opposed to such things, but cannot understand them (1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Matt. 12:30). Dr. White discussed some theology from his Reformed perspective. Agree or disagree, Silverman was still unable to refute anything or support his own claims. However, White also managed to make the gospel message clear. Some of his detractors have said he does not do this, especially with Mohammedans, but that is easily debunked when honestly considering the source material. Here is one example (try to ignore the excessive piano music).

As I understand it, closing remarks are not the place to introduce new claims in a formal debate. David Silverman did not quite follow the debate rules in his opening statements and in several places in the course of the event. He made some interesting and unsustainable assertions about Neanderthals and the origin of religion in his conclusion. Being an atheist, he used the naturalistic evolutionary scientific principle of Making Things Up™. That fits, because his naturalistic subjective morality is inconsistent and unlivable. Perhaps that would explain the desperate-sounding "Oooooh! Aaaaah!" sounds while Dr. White was talking, as if those were "Gotcha!" moments. Silverman didn't get a gotcha, except those he inflicted on himself.

I recommend that Christians watch this video. There are two specific things I'd like you to notice. First, theology is vitally important when having a debate or a protracted discussion with an unbeliever. Many Christians try to refute evolution and atheism by posting a captioned picture. (We share many of those at The Question Evolution Project, but the posts contain links and other text because we're hoping to edify and equip Christians.) You do not have to be an expert in every aspect of theology, else there would be almost nobody talking about it. But you do need to have a good working knowledge of Christian essentials, whether debating or not.

The second thing I'd like you to notice is the importance of presuppositional apologetics. Those of us who use it are infuriating to atheists and evolutionists, since we not only believe the Bible, but we show how their worldviews do not work. The biblical worldview, beginning in Genesis, is the only one that can consistently answer the basic questions of human experience. White made it clear that Silverman's worldview is based on his biases and preferences, not on reason or reality. I frustrate Calvinists because I refuse to identify as Calvinist or Arminian, but strongly affirm presupposition apologetics in many of my writings.

I need to add that what is seen is typical among atheists. I've heard Silverman before, and much of this was very similar to other debates. Other atheist debaters (whether anonymous keyboard warriors or others) are very much like what you will hear in this debate. They equivocate on definitions, change the subject, attack the person, misrepresent people and positions, and more. Then they consider people like Silverman to be brilliant. Not hardly! Illogical thinkers applaud each other for affirming their preconceptions.

Here's the hard part: the video is intimidating at first because it is three hours long all told. However, there are some links in the video itself where you can skip the introductory remarks, skip the debate rules, and so on. David Silverman begins, and his opening remarks start at the 13 mini. 50 sec. mark. Also, the audience questions begin at 2 hrs. 34 min. 39 sec., so the debate itself is just over two hours. So, get your chips and soda, get comfortable, and here is the video when you're ready.

July 4, 2017

Liberty or the Collective?

When individual liberties thrive, there is a sense of accountability and a sense of wanting justice. For example, in the Soviet Union, atheist Stalin pushed for the collectivization of farms, where individuals were made to be inferior through propaganda and actual coercion. Can't have peasants owning and harvesting their own land, can we? No! We must work together for the common good of the Soviet, and you will be rewarded with farm equipment. Otherwise, what little you have will be taken away. This horrible procedure led to despair, famine, cannibalism, and more. 


 “Strengthen working discipline in collective farms” USSR propaganda poster
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Totalitarian regimes emphasize the "common good" (or "greater good") of whatever those in power have decreed. People have little hope or expectation of justice. Such governments are usually riddled with corruption (the aforementioned Soviet Union was famous for corruption). Want to get something done? Have a bribe handy. 

Countries with some semblance of God-given liberty and the dignity of the individual, are much more likely to thrive. Science thrives in the proper environment, and individuals can be rewarded. They also voluntarily work for the good of the societies in which they live. Those of us in the West tend to take our freedoms for granted — until they are threatened by those who essentially want to collectivize us under totalitarianism. Then we fight to keep our liberties.
When citizens are taught that they cannot help themselves, the outcome is predictable: social breakdown and increased criminal behavior.
This headline might surprise some left-leaning, materialist philosophers in academia: “Belief in free will predicts criminal punishment support, disapproval of unethical actions.” Social scientists at the University of Minnesota surveyed 65,000 individuals from 46 countries, some with governments that respect individual liberty and some with dictatorial or corrupt governments. Here’s what they say they found:
You can find out what they found and read the rest of this article by clicking on "Freedom Exalts a Culture".
   

June 23, 2017

Clean Living and the Bible

Seems that when something is written and then shared about something beneficial in the Bible, mockers will invariably make vacuous comments about "fairy tales written by illiterate Bronze Age goat herders", and then congratulate themselves on the superior intellect of The Mighty Atheist™. If they were intellectually honest, they'd be forced to admit that there are things contained within that are helpful in many ways.

No, this post isn't exactly about morality, it's about physical cleanliness. The Bible has a lot to say, and if people paid attention, quite a few situations involving the spread of disease would have been contained. For that matter, although homosexuality is an abomination before God, it also spreads disease.

Jesus healing lepers Bible health information disease
The Healing of Ten Lepers, James Tissot, 1886-1896, Brooklyn Museum
Ever see that first Alien movie? We were saying, "Don't open the door and let the guy into the ship!" (As if anyone could hear us, obey, and we'd have watched a very short flick.) They let it in, and chaos ensued. It's a strange example, but a possible "contagion" should have been isolated. 

Scoffers like to malign the Old Testament as if God's commands to have lepers separate themselves, pottery that came in contact with infected people should be destroyed, bodily waste could not be in the camp, and other things, were not just examples of God being cranky and arbitrary. No, there were excellent reasons.

Interesting that many discoveries in medical practices (such as hand washing under running water, and containment) had their basis way back in the Old Testament. They were not discovered, they were rediscovered. Add to biblical principles the modern antiseptics and isolation, things are not quite so widespread. Our Creator and Redeemer had provisions for our physical health as well as our eternal destiny.
Old diseases that had been considered to be no longer health problems are re-emerging in importance. . . What is worse, there is no cure or vaccine for many of these deadly diseases.

On the positive side, the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, provide tremendous insight and relief concerning disease prevention. Remarkably, the Pentateuch is regarded as the earliest evidence we have of sound public health and sanitary practices. These ancient writings, when used in conjunction with modern medicine, can break the mode of transmission of virtually every scourge known to humanity.

What follows is a brief summary of the biblical instructions pertaining to public health and sanitation. Bear in mind that these regulations were practiced some 3,500 years before the germ concept of disease was discovered (mainly by the creationist Louis Pasteur)!
To read the rest, click on "The First Book of Public Hygiene". 
 

June 7, 2017

Donald Trump, the Paris Accord, and Globalism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

President Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and leftists are in a frenzy. Not that it takes much to put them into a frenzy, as this lunatic comparing Trump to Kim Jong-un before the withdrawal was official aptly demonstrates. Interesting comparison, but we're not the ones calling for the punishment of global warming "deniers". If you dare to doubt the Holy Sacraments of the left, such as global warming/climate change, abortion, gun control, sexual perversion, and to some extent, evolution, you are calling down the fire. Why do you think I use an unregistered assault keyboard?

Is Trump wrong to leave the Paris Agreement only five months into his eight years of presidency? After all, we don't want the entire planet to overheat, and it would be nice if leftists stopped smashing store windows and burning dumpsters (which may contribute to global warming). There are several serious questions to consider, but we're not getting the truth from the leftist fake news media.

Images are public domain, background from the Library of Congress,
the others from Clker clipart
Actually, there is no evidence for anthropogenic global warming, despite the skewed data and "consensus" non-science that gets reported. Bill Nye the Pretend Scientist in a Bow Tie has a lot to say, but gets put in his place by people who actually have knowledge about global warming. Climate change arguments cited by leftists are spurious. In fact, the "consensus" is not all that it's cracked up to be, and there are serious doubts about said consensus.

If you study on it a spell, you'll realize that global climate change hysteria is based on deep time evolutionary thinking, and that there is no God who is in control, so his promises in his written Word are meaningless. Biblical creationists know that our duty is to have good stewardship of Earth, but we are not called to cave in to globalists with a political agenda that is disguised as concern for the world. We also trust our Creator. For a serious, thoughtful, biblical, and definitely not sarcastic analysis of the Paris Agreement, I strongly recommend that you read the transcript or get the MP3 of Dr. Albert Mohler's podcast on the June 2, 2017 episode of The Briefing.



May 30, 2017

Happy Anniversary to Me

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is my first and longest-running weblog, and this is its tenth anniversary. It's kind of fun to look back and note the many changes. Near the beginning, I assumed a persona of an Italian tough guy, and mentioned my "crew". Several of the people were real, and some were completely made up (Tommy the Knocker comes to mind, I was thinking of the mythical creatures called tommyknockers at the moment). Then, as now, I wrote about whatever seemed interesting at the time. Many posts were written on my lunch break at the workplace. Back then, I didn't have the "Cowboy" moniker.

Credit: Clker clipart
I was writing about politics for a spell, but lost heart and interest for a couple of reasons. First, I recommitted my life to Jesus Christ, which became a priority. Second, Caliph B. Hussein Obama became the child emperor of the United States. But my interest in Christian material was rekindled, especially biblical creation science, which led to "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman". I deleted a hundred or more of the posts and articles from this weblog later on.

Something that I found interesting in this journey. One is my writing style has changed (and I believe it's for the better), but I'm not trying too hard right now, this is a free-thought conversational-type piece. Lots of research for articles and posts — by the way, my distinction is that articles are original material, and posts have introductions, excerpts, and links to keep reading a featured article.

I've also learned that I don't want to trust Fair Use on images any more than I need to. Most of what I post is from sites that host free images, or public domain images (the US government has many of those). While I may have been on safe legal ground when using images, I didn't want to take chances and rode the safer trail.

Research has been very educational, and I followed many rabbit trails where one thing leads to another: I start with, say, free clipart, see a link to Fair Use, and eventually find myself reading about an old rock band I used to hear. Not so much of that when I'm under time pressure. Although my web search skills have improved, so has search engine software. I can find what I'm looking for most of the time, but some things are very difficult to locate.

Writing here was almost a daily thing, but now it's mostly an archive and maybe a bit of a journal. I'll still put things here, but it seems to have become monthly. Regular readers are pretty much gone, and that's my doing because if you don't write, they can't come over to read. Right?

May 21, 2017

Atheism, Religion, and Reality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There's a whole whack of supporting links and recommended resources in this article. This is not a blanket approval for everything on every site, so I reckon that people have to use their discernment when reading other material at those sites, you savvy?

To hear some professing atheists talk, they want to usher in an age of science and reason, which should be accomplished by doing away with religion and superstition. They get mighty ornery when someone points out that atheism itself is a religion, and don't even want to look at the evidence. What they are attempting to do is proselytize people into their fundamentally flawed worldview, and distance themselves from the religion moniker. The principle of "separation of church and state" that they misrepresent when bullying through litigation could backfire on the religion of atheism.

I'll allow that atheists generally do not have a formal confession of faith or attend meetings, but many find their identities in atheism, and it gives them a purpose in their lives. (Not a good purpose, since atheists are not the ones building schools and hospitals, providing relief efforts, and so on. Some may join in with helping their fellow humans, but it's obvious that Christian organizations are the ones doing the heavy lifting.) A few atheists admit that they have a religion, and a few more admit that theirs is a worldview, but most claim the disingenuous redefinition of atheism as "lack of belief".

Where do professing atheists get their morality and ethics? The do not have a consistent moral standard, so they their morality comes from societal trends, arbitrary philosophies and excuses, and especially from evolution. How the failed evolutionary philosophy of "survival of the fittest" can provide anything beyond selfishness escapes me. For more on atheism, religion, evolution, and so on, see "Atheist Denies Atheism Is a Religion".

Many atheopaths simply hate the God that they pretend does not exist, and seek to make the lives of Christians miserable. Note that they do not spend much time on Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moslems, Buddhists, the Annunaki and Nibiru, or other non-Christian religions. This is an unintentional and indirect confirmation of what the Bible says about them. More about that later.


Atheists are illogical and intellectually dishonest

Although the Mighty Atheist™ may think he has super powers, critical thinking is not his strong suit. Nor is basic human decency. Trolling, misrepresentation, straw men, ad hominem attacks, bullying, genetic fallacy, acting like the atheistic equivalent of internet MS-13 gang members, insisting that their faith in science is science, and many more instances of intolerance are found, but things that make them likeable and rational? That'll be the day! Many consistently and blatantly misrepresented our positions. 

There is an atheopath who claims to "debunk" creation science and The Question Evolution Project in particular. Like many others, he constantly misrepresents creationists. He does not read the material, insists that I debate him on his Fazebook Page, and calls me a coward for refusing to waste my time in a prolonged discussion, yet refuses to give his name. It further reduces his respectability that he is unable to recognize that through a few brief comments, I have already defeated him in logic, shown him to be dishonest, and that anti-theism presupposes theism (they rip off our worldview in order to criticize it.) He has no originality, either — confiscates other people's work for La Revolución and twists it. So anyway. Antony Flew was an atheist for years, then admitted that evidence (especially DNA) convinced him that God exists. However, he apparently never became a believer in Jesus Christ. The one I mentioned above made the following comment and lied outright about Flew's conversion. In addition, he demonstrated dreadful reasoning that strikes me as a relative of the genetic fallacy, that Flew was right while he was an atheist and met with this jasper's approval, then he was wrong because his belief system changed:


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
In Christian theology, the concept that sin has affected all areas of the unbeliever, including the ability to reason, is called the noetic effects of sin. It helps explain the intellectual dishonesty of atheism.

When atheists, who claim to love science, logic, and reason, demand scientific proof that God exists, they have already misfired on the draw. Why? Because that is a logical fallacy known as the category error or category mistake. (You can't use material means to test for the immaterial, Skippy.) Since thinking is hard, many attack the Bible instead. When given evidence that the Bible is trustworthy, they double down on their prejudicial conjectures, as discussed in "Doubt the Bible? You Might be a Conspiracy Theorist". Many well-intentioned Christians think that if they give atheists and evolutionists enough evidence, they will renounce their positions and submit themselves to God. This seldom works, and is actually dishonoring to God. You may end up with a Deist like Antony Flew, who is just as lost as a full-gallop atheist.

Like other unregenerate people, atheists are under Satan's control (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14. 2 Cor. 4:4) and are enemies of God (Matt. 12:30 Rom. 5:10). When unbelievers say, "Prove to me that God exists, but leave the Bible out of it" and wants you to be neutral, a saying from Dr. Greg Bahnsen is worth remembering: they aren't, and you shouldn't be. That's because neutrality is a myth. The unbeliever is presupposing materialism and the rejection of God, and we are saddling up on his horse at his ranch and riding the trail of his choosing. Essentially, we agreeing with him by denying what God says about the unsaved. By letting the unbeliever decide whether or not God exists using his or her fallen, corrupt "wisdom", we are not only letting him put God on trial, but making his authority superior to the Word of God! The Christian is supposed to uphold the authority of Scripture. Satan fell from Heaven because of pride, and has been using it ever since. Note the extreme arrogance and pride of many professing atheists; we cannot be supporting their egos and pride.

You will not find anywhere in the Bible where a prophet, apostle, Jesus, or anyone else saw fit to prove either the existence of God or the historicity of Genesis. No, they started with the presupposition that God is real and the entire Word of God is true. The Bible tells us plainly that those who claim to be atheists know that God exists, but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-22). This explains why they spend a disproportionate amount of time railing against God and his people instead of other groups. 

At this point, you may wonder if I'm advocating fideism and rejecting the presentation of evidence. Not hardly! Christians and creationists use a passel of evidence. It is not to be used to convince someone who is hostile to the faith, but when someone says, "I have something that I'd like to understand", we can use evidence to help remove a stumbling block to faith. Although evidence, science, whatever, are subordinate to the Word of God, they also help strengthen the faith of Christians. 

The biblical creationist worldview is the only one that comports with reality. Logic, science, evidence, morality, and those other things that atheists claim to believe in are actually impossible in their worldview. When they appeal to the uniformity and consistency of nature, right and wrong, and the laws of the universe, they are actually standing on our worldview, since belief in a godless random chance universe is inconsistent and irrational.


Insisting on his Scientism and reaching a conclusion via circular reasoning
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
EDIT: In responding to this post about illogical questions such as, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?" (which implies the legitimacy of belief in square circles and so forth). He states it's a valid question, but it is actually quite irrational. By making this claim, he has finalized his disqualification from serious consideration in any logical discussion. I wonder if he's too young to be on Facebook.


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
What I'm doing is using presuppositional apologetics. Atheists hate this apologetic because it shows how their epistemology (study of knowledge) mixes in metaphysics, and that their worldview is irrational and inconsistent — and deflates their pride. They commence to circling the wagons and opening fire on us when we point out that we all have our ultimate starting points. Ours is the Word of God, theirs is materialism, which makes science and reason impossible. They really get on the prod when we point out that atheists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves. Atheist bigots establish an arbitrary standard with which they contemptuously judge others who have the temerity to disagree with their opinions and dismantle their reasoning.
You scientific people build up whole philosophies on the basis of things you never saw, and you scoff at people who believe in other things that you think they never saw and that don't come under what you label scientific. You talk about paradoxes—why, your scientist, who thinks he is the most skeptical, the most materialistic aggregation of atoms ever gathered at the exact mathematical centre of Missouri, has more blind faith than a dervish, and more credulity, more superstition, than a cross-eyed smoke beating it past a country graveyard in the dark of the moon!
— Outburst from Larry O'Keefe in Abraham Merritt's The Moon Pool

I have the opinion that anti-creationists and atheists are becoming more obstreperous because their father down below knows that his time is short, so he's using his hand puppets to try to destroy the faith of as many Bible believers as he can. Christians, I'd be very much obliged if y'all would take the time to read a couple of articles that explain these things far better than I can. First, "Help In Understanding Presuppositionalism". This is at "Theocentric Living", which is unfortunately not being maintained any longer. (The comments areas show the importance of comment moderation.) Next is a longer article that has some overlap with t'other, but presents some good basics, "What Is Presuppositional Apologetics?"

Digging deeper, I strongly recommend Dr. Jason Lisle's book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, and there is a video for sale as well as versions of talks on the subject on YouTube, such as this one. Many articles from various authors are linked at The Domain for Truth, which also has a variety of posts.

While we are to present the gospel to everyone who asks (1 Peter 3:15) and tear down fortresses against the knowledge of the truth (2 Cor. 10:3-5), we must do it in a Christ-honoring way. That means holding fast to the Word, and not allowing the unbeliever to judge God. Evidence and science are important, even exciting, but our apologetic needs to be in a presuppositional framework: do not use "neutral ground". Take note: it's not about evidence or science, salvation is a spiritual matter. We do use our minds, but they deny the existence of the soul or spirit. Further, it is not our job to do the conviction or saving through our own brilliant argumentation (1 Cor. 2:4-5), that's the work of the Holy Spirit. We have to do our part and trust the results to God.

 

April 24, 2017

Further Adventures in Atheo-Fascism

Atheists and evolutionists want biblical creationists silenced
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

By my reckoning, evidence refuting evolution and deep time is increasing, as is evidence for special creation. Anti-creationists on the web commence to jabbering, trolling, bullying — but are unable to offer luculent responses. Instead, they react.

Hatetheists and fundamentalist evolutionists detest that we present our side of the origins controversy. In fact, many act like we do not even have the right to disagree with their worldview. Something I've said before of which I am more firmly convinced than ever: they want us silenced. 

Many scoffers will pretend to read articles, listen to podcast, or watch videos we provide. However, they make judgments based on a title, a summary, or some-such. They embarrass themselves because their criticisms were often addressed in the items they refused to investigate, such as this one.

In their blinded pride and arrogance, mockers utilize many rescuing devices, often using logical fallacies to dry-gulch the opposition. For example, they reject Christian or creationary sources outright (the genetic fallacy), as well as utilizing straw man arguments, ad hominems, and more. You can often see them justify their bigotry and abuse of reason. I was even attacked for giving a warning about fake accounts and the risk of identity theft (you can see that here, but it takes a moment to completely load.) Since they cannot make us shut up and go away through superior science and reason, they vilify us in an effort to negate what we are saying, and gleefully engage in bullying.


Used under Fair Use guidelines and with the commenter's permission
Click for full size
In addition to the above screenshot, someone posted a comment on an atheopath Page. A commenter on that Page went to his timeline and trolled him. These clowns are unable to understand that ridicule is not refutation. 

I reckon that those who are serious about wanting to learn what we believe and teach would actually read the articles, and even check out references and "for further reading" links. But no, they get that bullying and ridicule bit between their teeth and it's off to the races. Go ahead, Skippy. You race, then come back to your mother's basement and the poisonous talking wall fungus. I've got other things to do.

Further, anti-creationist owlhoots use those ad hominem remarks to try and poison the well against Christians and biblical creationists. They seem to think that assertions and accusations are self-validating; perhaps if an utterance is made from The Mighty Atheist™, it becomes a fact. That'll be the day! In a similar manner, the ad hominem labels they attempt to attach to us are expected to be true despite lack of relevance or truthfulness: liar, science denier, homophobe, coward, evil — and of late, fascist.

That last one is common among Darwin's Flying Monkeys© who really have no idea what it means They call someone a fascist in retaliation for being banned because of trolling, blasphemy, bad logic, narcissism, or whatever. While most of us believe in free speech, we know there are limits for it (such as defamation, incitement to violence, obscenity, and more. For a detailed article on this, see "Free Speech, Censorship, the Internet, You and the Bad Guy", and I admit that the title is excessively long). Someone gets banned from a part of social media or his comments are disallowed, he shrieks, "Censorship! You're a fascist!" Such weak attempts at manipulation invariably fail, and even strengthen the resolve of those who did the banning.

Fascism is based on pagan nature worship (as is evolution) and is merged with nationalism. With atheism, secularism, and evolutionism tracking the way they are, I affirm my article, "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism". Atheo-fascists do not want free speech, they want us silenced. Bullying, ridicule and misrepresentation were common propaganda tactics during fascist rule. While misotheists claim to care about science, they prefer to protect their religion from scrutiny and exposure. Note how they congratulate each other on churlish behavior, and all creation evidence must be attacked by the brown shirts. Sieg Heil, mein Liebling! They try to shout us down until we go away.

People also believe in things because of celebrity influence. Evolutionists and atheists work the celebrity angle quite frequently. (Shamefully, so do Christians to some extent.) Hume, Dawkins, Nietzsche (I doubt that they've really read him, he didn't cotton to Darwin's views), even elevating failed scientist Nye to atheistic pope status. Atheopaths claim that they are the clever ones because they analyze things, and Christians are mindless sheep. This shows they are not logical thinkers, because they use prejudicial conjecture, sweeping generalizations, and other fallacies in that ego-boosting claim. Again, such behavior is used to poison the well against Christians and creationists.

Bill Nye the Scientism Guy (who does not know what he's talking about regarding climate change) was called a fascist, and I don't think that's far off the mark. He wants to control education so that it promotes naturalistic evolution only, despite what the majority of Americans desire. Nye also wants climate change "deniers" put in jail. He's influential as a celebrity and poster boy for secularism and materialism, but not influential as a scientist. He never was a scientist, but he uses his status to promote leftist political causes

Watch for the atheopaths who are self-appointed experts in all sciences, including psychology. It is common to see a Christian point out a failing in logic, science, morality, or whatever, and have it deflected with, "You are using projection". If you study on it a spell, projection is often a characteristic of narcissism, and many atheists (especially keyboard warriors on the web) fit the bill for narcissistic sociopaths. Sure looks like the ones accusing people of projection are really the ones doing the projection. Same thing with those accusing others of being fascists, when evolutionary atheists are being fascistic themselves. Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Materialism, leftism, and fascism are on the increase in society. God the Creator as revealed in his written Word is despised and rejected. Those of us who have the impudence to show that atheism is irrational, stand for the truth of Scripture, tell the world that science actually supports biblical creation and the Genesis Flood, must be silenced according to their rule book. They don't know that the final victory belongs to God.



April 21, 2017

Ad Blockers and Stealing

Some people think that using an ad blocker is stealing

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Some website owners have a burr under their collective saddles about ad blockers, and we frequently encounter a site that will say, in essence, "Shut off your ad blocker or we won't let you view our site". (If I wanted to get bullied, I'd talk about the truth of biblical creation science to atheists.) So, I click out of the site — which may have received traffic if I used them as a reference in an article. There are some sites that ask you nicely to shut off the ad blocker, but let you continue. An attitude like that may cause me to reconsider if I have to go back there again. Some cranky authors attempt to make a case that we are "stealing" if we use an ad blocker. Are we stealing when we fast-forward through commercials on our DVRs? Wonder where their foundation is for morality and ethics. Anyway, such a complaint doesn't make a whole heap of sense if you study on it.
  • Bandwidth
    Not everyone is blessed with ultra-high speed connections that gallop to the far horizon in a flash. Advertising is intrusive and slows folks down, especially on mobile devices where the user is required to pay extra for internet access. What really takes the rag off the bush is when advertising videos pop up when I'm trying to read or research. I close out of those, too.

  • Privacy
    One reason ad blockers exist is because of privacy and tracking concerns. There are services that combat tracking that are used in conjunction with ad blockers, but they often interfere with your browsing pleasure if they're not adjusted properly. Sometimes they interfere anyway.

  • Irrelevance
    Some sites "monetize" (which I can do on my own sites). This can be done by popping up ads about vacations (can't afford Jamaica and don't have enough vacation time), cologne (got some that I haven't worn in years, don't need more), a new car (paying off the emergency loan on the current car), a new computer (maybe later), dating sites (my wife frowns on that), and so on. Besides, if I'm pressed for time or just want to read and more on, I ignore the ads that don't get blocked. I reckon that most people have trained themselves to have blind spots to them as well.

  • Annoyance
    Have you ever had a site that gave you so many ads through pop-ups, pop-unders, videos, and so on that the browser crashed? I have, but it was in the olden days of Windows 95 and far less sophisticated browsers. Even so, lots of stuff vying for your attention gets irksome. Hey, I wonder if pop-up blockers that are built into browsers are "stealing" as well? Or the people who disable JavaScript?

  • Adware, Malware and PUPs
    Many sites run low-quality ads, and worse, allow sidewinders to post adware, malware (such as "you have been infected, call...") and links to Potentially Unwanted Programs. Then you have to learn how to remove the infections and PUPs. I suspicion that ad blockers help reduce those threats. Practice safe computing so you don't get infected with something nasty.
Let's study on this claim that using an ad blocker is "stealing" a bit more. When we visit sites, we are not committing to purchase a doggone thing. Going into the Big Box Chain Store to look around, or maybe have something specific in mind that we can't find, we're not stealing. (The comparison is flawed, I know, but I think the point is valid.) Also, there are many sites that are free, so we don't cotton to getting bushwhacked by those who say they depend on ad revenue for purchase that are unlikely to happen in the first place. They get paid for letting people post the ads? Not my problem. After all, aren't we trained by cyber experts to be skeptical of monetary scams?

So, to the guy who says that those of us who use ad blockers are "stealing", I have some bad news for you, sunshine: nobody's stealing. Maybe if you made your site a pay-for-subscription thing, people would be happy to make you rich to see your exquisite and informative content. By the way, something else I've seen is that site content is freely available for a while, but later it's only available to subscribers. That may be a good idea, since the free material can be advertising in a way for the rest of the content.

Here's an article that deals with the above subject matter in less of a rantish and sarcastic manner: "Is using ad-blocking software morally wrong? The debate continues".


April 1, 2017

The Amazing Super Powers of the Mighty Atheist™

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Years ago, I wrote "atheist" on Twitter, and one cautioned me about using that word because I risked "calling down the thunder". We know that they can be ornery cusses even on their good days, but I was unaware of the intellectual prowess and wisdom of The Mighty Atheist™, dwarfing that of a mere theist. What I had yet to learn, however, is that they also have super powers that are even magical at times. Now I know better. Christians and creationists, I hope you heed this warning!


Super powers mighty atheist
Graphic modified from Clker clipart
As with other super powers, those of The Mighty Atheist™ are difficult to categorize. Not all atheists and evolutionists have the same powers to the same degree, and there is no special school for gifted atheists under a professor so they can develop their abilities. Like logical fallacies, powers often blend and overlap. Let's saddle up and ride over yonder to Deception Pass where the atheists, atheopaths, anti-creationists, and others are having a hootenanny to celebrate International Atheists Day right now.

PRECOGNITION AND CLAIRVOYANCE
Yes, they know what you are going to say one-on-one, what a creationist is going to say at a conference, and everything between. Many often know what you are doing during your Sisyphean apologetic efforts. They also know that difficulties for evolution discussed by creationists (such as dinosaur blood and soft tissues) will someday have a scientific explanation, so creationists are already wrong before that great day happens. An example: "I could ask Gordons WHAT 'misrepresentation' took place and WHAT relevant information I omitted. But he would not answer my question. So I don't think I'll bother."

AT-A-GLANCE ASSESSMENT
Atheists are able to read an introduction to an article or even just a title and know what is being said. There is no need to follow links or read the rest of the article. This tinhorn is able to asses the intellectual ability of a writer and utterly dismiss him simply by reading a few paragraphs. Cherry-picking and straw man argumentation is permitted (discussed below).

EDUCATION IS UNNECESSARY
When challenging evolution and atheism, the Christians and creationists are required to provide credentials of advanced education in relevant areas. Since atheists and evolutionists have no need for reading articles and their supporting links, they are not required to show credentials — or even to possess significant education; any jasper can defend evolution. Flinging outdated, biased links from Wikipedia, Talk.Origins, (Ir)RationalWiki, and other sites that favor them is justified. Even an abstract (which is a kind of promise for what will be included in a scientific paper) is devastating to us. Indeed, the links to do not even need to be related to the topic at hand, and we are effectively refuted. A step further, although they disbelieve in God (but still hate him) and reject the Bible, many are experts in theology (albeit without education) and can refute any Christian who dares to oppose their statements.

LOGICAL FALLACIES BECOME ACCEPTABLE
While the rest of us are constrained to following the rules of logic, The Mighty Atheist™ is able to use cherry-picking, misrepresentation, ad hominems, straw men, hasty generalization, and many more arguments that are normally considered illegitimate. When a Christian or creationist identifies those, fallacies are no longer fallacies, but are transformed into legitimate argumentation. In addition, actively lying about Christians and creationists is effective, because lies become truth when uttered by those with super powers. In a similar manner, opinions change into facts! Any assertion or accusation can be made, and evidence is unnecessary. Changing the subject when cornered and attacking is encouraged, and again, no longer fallacious. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

REDEFINITION
Atheists have conveniently redefined atheism as "lack of belief" instead of the long-established meaning of "belief that there is no God or supernatural". It becomes valid for an evolutionist or atheist to call someone a liar when a statement is made that these sidewinders dislike or are unable to refute. Yes, it becomes a lie because they said so. Actual definitions of atoms-to-atheist evolution can be changed so they can be more evolution-friendly. Calling someone a "fascist", even though most do not know what that word means, makes someone a fascist. We cannot dispute this ability, and must accept it.

AMAZING FAITH IN MATERIALISM
The Mighty Atheist™ has no tolerance for those of us who dare mock their popes and high priests, such as Carl Satan Sagan, Charles Darwin, Clinton Richard Dawkins, and so on. Presuppositions held by materialistic atheists and evolutionists are true, and need not be supported through logic. When challenged, the empowered atheist may shoot you down with death rays from his eyes, usually accompanied with epithets of, "Liar! Fascist! You know nothing of science! What you said is not true! I'm smarter than you!" and so on. Although they reject God, they hate him; blasphemy is acceptable in their eyes, even daring to call God a liar.

RECRUITMENT IN THE CAUSE
They can find like-minded people to join on their atheistic jihads. Think of piranhas. (This ability is used frequently among atheists and evolutionists who have less developed super powers.) I had said that one atheopath has a personal motto of "I'm telling!", and that is common among them. They seek out their own kind to join in with attacks, but also tattle on Christians and creationists to entreat assistance from those who may have power and authority. These junior members are often ignored by their superiors.

CONCLUSION 
One of the best things I learned from a comic book was the line from Spider-Man, "With great power comes great responsibility". When it comes to The Mighty Atheist™ , something similar is true: with great egos come the illusion of great power. Though most try to deny it, atheism is a religion. They may think we are defeated, but we have truth in the Word of God.

They may think they are bringing the world wisdom and reason, but they are fools (Psalm 14:1). Despite the protestations of professing atheists, they do know that God the Creator exists (Rom. 1:18-23). Their worldly "wisdom" is worthless (1 Cor. 1:20). Like the rest of us, they have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and deserve divine punishment, but can be redeemed (Rom. 6:23). Not only redeemed, but can become children of God (John 1:12, Rom. 8:13-17). The tremendous pride, arrogance, and bullying of atheists and fundamentalist evolutionists makes it difficult for them to humble themselves and repent, but they can have new life. Not just atheists, but all unbelievers are under God's wrath and need to repent for salvation. Today is April 1. Don't be a fool in God's eyes.


March 17, 2017

Induced Morality

The public has a strange relationship with the secular science industry. Some adore it and put their unquestioning faith in it (Scientism), such as I saw years ago in response to a question: "Scientists will come up with a pill for it or something". Others have a mixture of trust and increasing suspicion, especially since the secular science industry has been betraying that trust. Now there's speculation that morality could be done by ingesting certain chemicals.


Prescription chemical morality
Made at Custom Prescription Maker
This should raise alarm among thinking people: whose morality? Most likely, it would depend on those in power. Atheists and other secularists have no consistent foundation for morality, and some seek it through evolutionism. Some owlhoots believe that they are doing good when they are doing evil. As a Bible-believing Christian, I do not want secularist "values" shoved down my throat — which could happen literally.
We often take pills to feel healthier, to ease pain, or to relieve symptoms. But what if you could take a pill to become a more moral you? According to an article in the National Post,
Neuroethicists and others thinkers are increasingly absorbed by the idea of “moral enhancement” through pharmaceuticals, implanted brain electrodes or other biomedical means.

Leading proponents argue advances in cognitive neuroscience suggest morally desirable capacities may, at least in part, be neurologically-based and therefore amenable to tinkering.

Some envision a day when we could use drugs that act directly on the brain to dial down aggression and other “anti-social” sentiments and dial up “pro-social” ones like compassion and trust.
Some studies have indeed suggested that certain prescription drugs do modify behavior, making people, for example, “more cooperative, less critical of others and more sensitive to other people’s pain.”
To read the entire article, click on "Prescription for Morality?"



Subscribe in a reader