Stormbringer's Thunder

Edited 9-28-2012 Hatetheists will naturally laugh at the title and this article (even to the point of disagreeing with me for its own sake). Some people are too young, uninformed and/or looking for excuses to hate to be aware of what has happened in the not-too-distant past. Totalitarianism is not normally something that happens quickly. The erosion of liberties takes place gradually, and when tyrants rule, cowed people wonder what happened. One advantage of having free speech is the ability to sound the alarm. While we still can. The nonsense of politically correct speech is increasing. It is an excuse to stifle free speech. I was watching some comedy shows on some of those increasingly popular rerun channels. There were jokes in them that were innocuous for their time, and would be harmless today. But they could not be done on modern TV shows because professional racists like Al Unsharpton would be organizing protests in front of the network's headquarters. People live i

This is circulating on Facebook A while back, I wrote an article on what I called "Bandwagon Convictions". I call them that because people jump on the bandwagon because something is trendy or popular. People would become atheists because of the shock value and the ability to get attention, not from actually reasoning to their position. (But the religion of atheism is on the slide , and intelligent people are more likely to be apathetic or contemptuous of such an admission.) In addition to jumping on a causal bandwagon for attention, people join causes because of emotion, a good sales pitch, a desire to please the current lover, to shut someone up or assorted other insincere reasons. Then (as is the case with atheism), people lose interest and start finding other things to do. I believe that there are two aspect to the so-called "gay rights" campaign. One is that "joiners" go along with this because they want to support a cause. Although homosexuals

Amazing. America was founded on Christian values (don't let the revisionist liars fool you). But some who want to follow in Stalin's footsteps and make this country an entirely secular nation ignore that fact. No, it appears that they want to remove the rights of Christians, or at least, force us to keep our beliefs to ourselves. Why don't those contemptible clowns realize that the United States Supreme Court has references to the Ten Commandments all over their building? Listen up, Poindexter, the so-called "separation of church and state" is not only something that is not found in the Constitution, you and your disbeliever friends have never had anything to fear from the Judeo-Christian ethic being expressed in public. I still think back to what Brad Stine says: Atheists are irrational. What is more irrational, someone praying to a God that he cannot see, or someone being "offended" by a God he doesn't even believe exists? But I digress. Let

Buon giorno. No, I'm not filing for separation from anyone. This "separation" thing is the alleged "separation of church and state". What I have to say seems contradictory at first glance, so I have to lay some groundwork. While listening to a debate between apologetics expert Matt Slick at CARM (any relation to John Slick who played keyboards for Petra, Matt? Addendum: "No", he told me. ) and an atheist he had to take a position that seemed contradictory to the atheist. (But that's typical of atheists, they want things their way, and do word games so they can play "gotcha!") The question was whether or not atheism is intellectually feasible. The "Infidel Guy" was obviously squirming and getting antagonistic, so he tried to box Mr. Slick in because he would not give a standard "yes or no" response. But to give that kind of response would have been dishonest. Yes, it's feasible only on the same level as pink uni