Showing posts with label Albert Mohler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Albert Mohler. Show all posts

January 1, 2020

Atheists Instructed to Lie to their Children

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

We have seen over the years on this site and many others that professing atheists have faulty moral compasses, and their worldview has no real hope or purpose. Indeed, it is incoherent and cannot be lived consistently. If someone is an atheist, why would it be wrong to lie?


Since religious people have better mental health than atheists, disbelieving parents are told to lie to their children about God. This causes many problems for their faulty moral compasses.
Image corrected from PIXNIO.
There are times when an atheist objects to something a Christian or biblical creationist says and makes an accusation of "you're lying". Why is that wrong in their worldview? (One of the times that I defeated a certain atheist is when I asked, "If I was actually lying, which has not been proved, why would that be wrong in your worldview?" The reply was, "Because I am not like you". That answer revealed some of his irrationality.) Of course, the same question could be asked of Clinton Richard Dawkins when he indulged in this bigotry.

According to materialism, we are just "ugly bags of mostly water" that react to our chemistry. Dishonesty is neither right nor wrong. For that matter, they have no right to complain about biblical creationists because we are "born this way", and they would be consistent in ridiculing someone who was born blind!

Dr. R. Albert Mohler had a segment on The Briefing that inspired this article. In it, he discussed how someone advised atheist parents to lie to their children about God. This is strictly from a pragmatic and functionalist view of religion (used here, it is a vague word). "Religious" people have better mental health, so lie to them if you don't believe in God. They want the benefits of religion, but deny the truth and substitute the mythology of evolution.

Pull back on them thar reins and holler, "Whoa!", Wilberforce! There are accounts of Christian parents who told their children that the secular version of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real, then when they learned that those are strictly fantasy, began to doubt the truth of the birth, death, crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Jesus. (My kids were told early on that they were just pretend.) What will the kids say when they realize that the parents blatantly lied about God? Mayhaps they'll question other "truths" that were told by these atheists.

Atheists get on the prod when we talk about recent creation and how the Bible is inerrant. They also detest the fact that their views lack the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, and by claiming something is right or wrong, they are tacitly standing on the Christian worldview. In lying to their children, atheists are contradictory. The God who gave them life and truth also commanded people not to lie. These folks need to stop suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, humble themselves, and repent before Almighty God.

I mentioned earlier that this article was inspired by Dr. Mohler. I urge you to read the transcript of download the audio. (Helpful hint: the segment under discussion is about eleven minutes long, and if you click on "Part 2", you can listen to it right away.) To investigate, click on "Friday, December 13, 2019" and look for that second part.

October 8, 2019

More Atheistic Propaganda from Dawkins

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Seems that Dr. Clinton Richard Dawkins got himself another atheopathy book on the market, which got the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod. Rusty Swingset ordered overtime at the propaganda mill with everybody on standby, and he went with another publisher.


Richard Dawkins has a new book of the same old propaganda for an incoherent worldview. He inadvertently proves God right again.
Left image credit: Wikimedia Commons / David Shankbone (CC by 3.0)
Right image credit: Imgflip and many other places on teh interweb
In a podcast of The Briefing by Dr. Richard Albert Mohler, we learned that Dawkins is inadvertently proving God right again (Romans 1:18-23). If you study on it a spell, you'll see that words like should, ought, and the like imply ethical and moral claims. According to atheism and evolutionism, we are just rearranged pond slime reacting to our chemical impulses. He has no right to criticize Christians or creationists because, in his fundamentally flawed worldview, we are born this way and cannot help it.

Actually, his rants do not contain valid logic. He tacitly admits God exists and simply gives excuses for hating God, who gave him life. Science is impossible without God, and so is logic. When atheists and evolutionists make moral claims, they are admitting that their atheistic worldview is irrational and incoherent, and are standing on the biblical worldview!

Ironically, his disciples use fallacious arguments against "religious" people making money, but this sidewinder is pulling in the grotzits from bad atheism. It pays to confirm biases and reinforce bigotry,  right, Dick?

I have a couple of things for you. First an article, "More of Dawkins’ same old tired rhetoric: Review of Outgrowing God by Richard Dawkins" from Matthew Cserhati at Creation Ministries International. Next, the podcast that inspired this article. You can read the transcript, listen online, or download the MP3. Click on The Briefing, Monday, October 7, 2019. The second and third segments are what we're looking for.

September 1, 2019

Weasel Words and the Gay Gene Study

A recent study affirms previous results that there is no gay gene. Materialists still attempt to use genetic determinism to deny the Creator and dehumanize people.Scientific news confirmed previous scientific news. Namely, there is no such thing as a gay gene. People who claim they were "born this way" can make all kinds of explanations, but genetics is not supporting their lifestyles. The very big new study had scientists and tinhorn news reporters dealing from the bottom of the deck, however.

The saying applies here: torture the evidence enough and it'll confess to anything. This study on homosexuality was about behavior, not orientations. Conflicting items from the report were cited, but we see that many genes are associated with homosexual behavior — and with other things as well. One even is a part of the sense of smell, so that's a good indication that the results do not pass the sniff test. An important part of the research tends to be neglected by leftists: causation and correlation are two completely different things.

Materialists seek to deny that we are created by God, and are instead slaves to our biochemical impulses. Added to this is the dehumanizing aspect of genetic determinism. Environmental factors are thrown into the trail mix by leftists, but that concept is a red herring and should be examined separately. Weasel words dominate science news reporting in an effort to further leftist hijacking science for their own ends.

There are two important things for your serious consideration. The first is an article:

Largest genetic study ever done on the subject shows no conclusive evidence genes influence homosexual behavior.
There is no “gay gene,” a big new study concludes. The results of a large genome-wide association study (GWAS) study were published in Science today. Some scientists, however, continue to try to tease the data for some evidence of a predisposition to homosexual behavior.
To read the rest, click on "Homosexuals Can’t Blame Their Genes". The next item is The Briefing podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler. You can listen online, download the MP3, or read the transcript of the first two segments. For this, click on "Part 1, Is Homosexuality Genetic? New Research Reveals an Old Story; Part 2, The Impulse to Ground Homosexuality in Biological Terms Is Driven By Morality, Not Just Science". Bonus article for Christians from May, 2018: "Regarding 'Sexual Orientation', Evil Desire, and the Question of Moral Neutrality".

May 30, 2019

Social Media Speech Police

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It seems a mite ironic that I began using this platform back in 2007 so I could have my say on various topic, and today I am complaining that various social media outlets are becoming more and more opposed to free speech — at least, among Christians and Conservatives.


Social media are becoming more and more heavy-handed in anti-Christian and anti-Conservative discrimination. This affects free speech itself.
Made at Atom Smasher
Facebook is frequently in the news by alternative media for discrimination and censorship. Hate speech against Jews, Christians, and Conservatives is just fine, but the sidewinders in charge will shut down Pages and accounts by people who are not atheists, anti-creationists, terrorists, socialists, and the like. Reporting those for clear violations of Fazebook's alleged Terms of Service are usually worthless. Two standards, no waiting.



Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)

Aside from their lackadaisical approach and blatant hypocrisy on their ToS, Fazebook removes Christians, Conservatives, and supporters of Israel (I have had posts and accounts removed, reported that my personal information was published to no avail, and know other Christians who have met the same heavy-handed censorship). Candace Owens was suspended for a non-violation, but was reinstated after a tremendous outcry. Do a search for "Diamond and Silk" who were suspended and reinstated on social media as well. Other people have not been so fortunate.

Several people were banned from Fazebook, and most of them were labeled as "right wing" (which means people that do not follow the leftist worldviews of the platform owners). Some people are saying that such activity is illegal, but I am not convinced because things like Facebook, Twitter, and others can make their own rules to some extent. It would be helpful if they admitted that Bible-believing Christians and political Conservatives are unwelcome. I have commented to FB that they are not too big to fail, and they can become as relevant tomorrow as Myspace is today.

There are alternatives to Facebook being presented such as MeWe that promise free speech, and others are also trying to make themselves known. I do not know about an alternative to Twitter, which is unfortunate because Twitter is no better than FB. Apparently, it's okay for Twitter and Fazebook to engage in bigotry and bullying because they have the political and moral high ground: leftism and secularism.


Who watches the watchers? Facebook and Twitter do not support free speech despite their claims. Their censorship is based on personal leftist preferences, not standards. Don't be disunderstanding me now, I am not supporting all forms of free speech such as racism, threats of violence, and so forth. But supporting leftist political agendas and suppressing Christian and Conservative values are hostile to a free society.

There is an article by Dr. Albert Mohler that I would like to submit for your approval. See "The New Thought Police? Facebook's Evicted Seven And The Future of Free Speech".

April 1, 2019

Atheist "Gotcha" Question: Does God Kill People?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For April 1, it is appropriate to examine how atheists try to trip up Christians with what some of us call "Gotcha!" questions and statements. Although they deny the existence of God, it is convenient for the God of the Bible to exist for them to hate him, the Bible, and his followers. They do know he exists, however, but unrighteously suppress the truth (Psalm 14:1, Romans 1:18-23).


Atheists and other unbelievers foolishly try to play "Gotcha!" games to denigrate the Bible and the character of God. One particular question about God killing people is examined.
Shattering atheism image courtesy of WHY?Outreach
Atheists are the MS-13 of rational discourse. I have seen atheistic "logic" work along the lines of, "I asked a question. The Christian could not answer it to my satisfaction. Therefore, the Bible is false and there is no God!" Mayhaps an atheist picked a professing Christian who is unskilled in apologetics or has not studied a particular question. If someone cannot answer a question it does not mean an answer is impossible, old son. I'll allow that there are some tricky areas that we struggle with, but they do not negate God's goodness or his existence. You savvy?

Many "Gotcha!" claims and questions involve efforts to discredit not only the veracity of the Bible, but the character of God. This is actually quite incoherent, similar to a child that cannot get someone to bow to his will, so he recruits others to unite in hate — but the child is still wrong. 



Dr. R. Albert Mohler has a message that deals with one of those hard questions in a straightforward way: Does God really kill people? He makes a few very important points. You can see the video or download the audio just below the video at "Does God Really Kill People?" Also for your consideration is the Veritas Domain collection of alleged contradictions that are refuted. To see those, click on "Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions". The truth is on our side, and those who engage in Olympic-style excuse making cannot change that fact. 

October 3, 2018

Darwinists Hating Trump over Ban on Fetal Tissue

The secular science industry has been riding for the leftist brand, and they are galloping faster toward the precipice. They have been promoting leftist causes at an increasing rate. Leftists have been having tantrums about the election of Donald Trump, and even had a failed "March for Science", (which was an early indication of just how far left the secular science establishment has been going). 

Some Conservatives have been pleasantly surprised by Trump. Not only because Hillary Clinton will never be president of the United States, ever, but because Trump has actually been keeping some promises. This includes steps toward protecting unborn children, which includes canceling a contract between the government and a fetal tissue lab.

The secular science industry is becoming involved in leftist activism. They are upset that Donald Trump has interfered with their use of aborted children.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Stuart Miles
Ethically-impaired leftists in the secular science industry want to continue to do research on aborted babies. After all, they're already dead, so who are they hurting? Sure, those sidewinders are being consistent with their evolutionary worldview, but they are still wrong. Some people still value human life for now, until we hear the cry, "Soylent Green is people!"
Darwinism cheapens human life. Here’s a huge societal debate about the consequences.
The Trump administration has launched a “sweeping review” of fetal tissue use, reports Nature. It cancelled a contract between the government and a fetal tissue lab, and will review all forthcoming requests by scientists to engage in fetal tissue research.
Pro-life leaders are exhilarated. It’s about time, they think, three years after the Center for Medical Progress shocked the public with undercover videos of Planned Parenthood showing blatant disregard for human life and for U.S. law, treating baby body parts like junk for sale. In David Daleiden’s speech at the Values Voter Summit 2018, he shares some of the videos and describes California’s attacks on CMP, where a pro-abortion judge is still refusing to allow many more hours of video to be released for viewing by the public. The videos showed that Planned Parenthood’s top officials had even approved the manipulation of abortion procedures so that ‘scientists’ could get the choice cuts undamaged. Nature is unhappy – not with Planned Parenthood, but with the Trump administration! The article begins with straightforward journalistic reporting, but ends with its customary anti-conservative subtext.
To read the rest, click on "Darwinists Unhappy About Trump Fetal-Tissue Ban".  Also, you may be interested in Dr. Mohler's segment (to read or download the audio) in this August 2017 episode of The Briefing, "The worldview of Scientism and the commodification of aborted fetuses".

May 12, 2018

Bad Marx for Communist Adoration

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

On May the Fifth, the 200th anniversary of the birth of atheist Sith Karl Marx was celebrated. Communism, its ugly kid sister Socialism, and other leftist systems are responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Many freedoms, especially speech and religion, are devastated under such rulers. China paid for a statue of Marx to be set up in Germany, the place of his birth.


Despite the murders and failures of communism and similar regimes, some people are trying to idolize Karl Marx

Everywhere these systems have been established, they have failed. Amazingly, people like failed US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders lauded Venezuela and other South American countries. China has a pretense of communism and forces atheism, but its economic system is a strange hybrid with capitalism. Most of us know that the communist Soviet Union (a "workers' paradise") collapsed, and North Korea is another communist police state that was propped up by the USSR. Even though most of communism collapsed and the ideology fell into some disrepute, it remained popular in academia.

Karl Marx was an atheist who set up communism as a materialistic worldview as well as an economic system. He praised Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life as the working of his own philosophies according to natural sciences. A few years after Darwin's book came out, Das Kapital (Capital: Critique of Political Economy) was published.

Marx replaced the gospel with his own worldview. Darwinism and materialism were used instead of creation, sin became the oppression of the dissatisfied worker, the redemption of Jesus Christ became violent revolution to control the economy. The truth in the Bible was given substitutes, and a new religion without God was formed. See how that works?

I believe a good part of the problem is that people want something for nothing. Politicians tell people what they want to hear, and appeals to power and money are effective. They want redistribution of wealth, or even money for nothing. The workers (or even non-workers) are given the illusion of control. As for the academics, they do not learn very well, even those who have lived through such totalitarian years. They also forget that communists imprison or execute intellectuals.

This is another article that was inspired by an episode of The Briefing by Dr. Albert Mohler. I strongly recommend that you listen to/download the May 8, 2018 podcast or read the transcript. Also, you may wish to read "The Darwinian Foundation of Communism". 

Say bye bye, Bernie and Bill.

February 22, 2018

Science Does Not Correct Itself

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is a connotation of science where scientists gather information, make a hypothesis, test it, revise as necessary, it becomes a theory, and eventually a law. Somewhere along the line the thing gets put out to pasture if the facts are recalcitrant. Such a view is not only naïve, but ignores human nature. Scientists are human, after all. 


Scoffing at new material

One expression I have encountered when discussing the origins controversy is that "science corrects itself". Aside from the reification fallacy (science is not a living thing, but scientists may correct themselves), this has been shown to be false — often in areas of technology. Great inventors were laughed at, such as Robert Fulton and the Wright brothers. It was said that if people move too fast (aside from dangerous acceleration, change of direct, and deceleration), they would have physical problems or even die. Scoffers were silenced by results. Some people attribute this ridicule to fear of technology; fear of robots and artificial intelligence may or may not be founded. I reckon it started with the industrial revolution.


Science is does not correct itself, and scientists tend to protect the consensus
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann

Phlogiston

Resistance to change has appeared in other scientific areas. People cling to the consensus; they may not want to "rock the boat". For example, scientists believed that phlogiston was the invisible ingredient that caused things to burn, and some were adhereing to it long after it was disproved.


Death in the hospital

A much more tragic insistence on consensus was with Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis. Women were dying from infections in hospitals after giving birth, and he used excellent critical thinking skills to isolate the problem and present a solution. Although he did not know why having doctors and students wash in a chlorine solution helped, deaths declined markedly. His peers laughed at him, and refused to consider the results, partly because he could not show the cause. His poorly-written treatise also hurt his purpose. He died a broken man, and he was only trying to save lives. Semmelweis was later vindicated by Pasteur and Lister. See "Ignaz Semmelweis: Medical pioneer persecuted for telling the truth" for more.


Blaming the staff

As an aside, the company where I work was having problems with completing data production. The Clock Nazi was blaming the staff for not working hard enough, and for "cheating". When I tried to offer my data processing skills and asked questions, he was blaming the day shift, while the night shift was "working harder". I pointed out that all the indications were of a software problem, since there was a major change about the time the problems began (the IT people at The Company frequently foul up the system). I wanted him to consider several factors, including timing, results, what changes were made, and other things. He insisted on blaming the staff. After he was made to go away, his views continued with his successors, since they prefer to listen to people on the inside instead of listening to the people who actually do the work. We will never know if I was on the right track or not. Admittedly, this is not about science per se, put it is about logic, human nature, and especially pride.


Overpopulation

In 1968, expert on insects Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which put people into a panic. He had projections about the bleak future of mankind due to overpopulation, which were discredited. It has been said that the entire population of the world can fit into New Zealand, New York City, Texas, Alaska...depends on who you read. I'll allow that it would be a mite uncomfortable, though. (I still have a vague memory of Overpopulation, a poster from the 1970s by John Pitre. The land was full of people packed together like sardines, with no land in sight. Probably inspired by Ehrlich. It was hysterics, not reality.) I suspicion that this population excitement was based on leftist political agendas. Even though the concepts were refuted, some people still have a kind of extreme overpopulation concept today. For more about Ehrlich and his book, I recommend the first part of this podcast of The Briefing, free to listen, download, or read the transcript.

Climate changes

For a time, it was thought that the world was going to have another ice age, and that idea persisted until fairly recently. Then it became global warming. Today, we hear most often about global climate change. There are scientists who reject man-made global warming, and the climate alarmists have been show to use faulty data and outright fraud. This fearmongering is based on old Earth and evolutionary concepts, which are based on circular reasoning and preconceptions. These fears are also based on an assumption that God does not exist or is not in control of his creation. 

Climate change is a darling of secularists, leftists, and globalists, who reject rational interpretations of true data. Instead, they prefer the hype and bad information, as climate change activists play on fears and the ignorance of science. Just look at the alarm over carbon dioxide, for example. Don't these clowns know basic science, and how plants need the stuff and give us oxygen in return? 

Evolutionary consensus

I'll end with Darwin's speculations about evolution. Although scientists disagree on so many areas, and although it has been falsified many times, Darwin's true believers crank out rescuing devices left and right. Speculations are passed off as actual scientific research, and there is an overabundance of terrible science and worse logic. Even though the logical conclusion is special creation, the implication that the Creator has told us about himself in his written Word is anathema to secularists. They are proudly rebelling against God, and upholding the erroneous consensus.

In the linked article about Semmelweis, you can see this quote: "The Semmelweis reflex is the informal name coined for the tendency of people to deny new evidence or knowledge that contradicts established beliefs or their worldview. As Semmelweis experienced, long-held ideas can remain entrenched despite potent evidence to the contrary, and people can and do persecute those who challenge the consensus, even when the consensus is wrong." Some folks go haywire and cry, "Katie, bar the door! We don't like the facts!" Evolution is an effort to remove God from the equation and essentially say that we created ourselves. God asked Job if he was going to blame God for his troubles so he could justify himself (Job 40:8), and I see many atheists and evolutionists attempting to do just that.




Pride

I'd like to add another aspect.

I believe that people want to think they're special, smart, right, and so forth. People professing atheism demonize God, the Bible, Christians, creationists, and so forth in what appears to be a pitiful effort to justify their rebellion against God. Scientists refuse to relinquish the consensus in light of new information, and the public follows what "scientists say" when it is convenient. Sure, people detest admitting they're wrong, even at their eternal peril. It all comes down to pride. That was Satan's downfall, and he's been using it to appeal to humanity ever since. God hates undue pride, and we have to rely on him to keep ours in check.

While some scientists make some corrections, a consensus can be firmly entrenched, and some will not change their views because it results in boat rocking as — well as pride problems. In addition, some scientists may have political or atheistic motives to protect the consensus. Science is definitely not self-correcting. Those who know the truth have to lead the cavalry charge up the hill and present the truth.

February 12, 2018

Genetic Tampering, Ethics, and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is an important topic for any day, but even more so for Question Evolution Day. Western civilization has strong Christian roots which have, in turn, effected ethics. That is mighty helpful, since modern science was mostly founded because of the biblical worldview. Unfortunately, with postmodernism, Darwinism, and materialism galloping wild and free, ethical and moral concerns in science are fading into the background. One example is of scientists who want to keep human embryos alive even longer before killing them.


Question Evolution Day cloning genetics CRISPR editing ethics

Other countries do not have such ethical constraints from the get-go. China has been working on the CRISPR genome editing tool, and are "unfettered by rules". While we have ethical concerns, the ChiComs are materialists and force atheism on their people, so we know where their "morality" will lead. 

In addition, China is moving forward with cloning, announcing that they have successfully cloned two monkeys. The concept of cloning gets some folks on the prod, with visions of glass vats full of bubbling water and creatures in various stages of growth. It's not that easy, requiring a great deal more than test tubes and storage units. 

Although "identical" twins are not absolutely identical, they are natural clones. However, there are genetic variations that occur in cloning. If someone had the means and took a notion to clone a hero or a tyrant, when the child became an adult, he or she could have a far different personality than that of the source. Like gene editing, cloning is also an area where people have wrestled with ethical questions. At the moment, unethical secularists seem to be persuading people to their point of view.

Do we want people with a materialistic worldview in charge of such potentially beneficial or destructive ideas as cloning and genome editing? The Western world is becoming increasingly secularized, while places like China don't pay ethics no nevermind. Atheism is enforced, even though it is irrational and incoherent, and science is not possible in a consistent atheistic worldview.

Christians who believe the Bible know that we were created in God's image, and humans have value and dignity. The idea of cloning humans should be alarming to us, as well as the probabilities of increasing eugenics and abortion. Hopefully, we can present the biblical creation worldview and supporting evidence so people will begin to question evolution. They need to see that life has purpose and value, and we are not just cosmic and biological accidents. People also need to see that evidence supporting special creation and refuting evolution is largely withheld by secularists. Ultimately, we hope to see them repent and trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation.

As usual, I have some items that I'd like to share with you. These are my main sources and inspirations for this article. First is from The Briefing Podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler. Free to read the transcript, listen online or download, click here. Second, "Monkeying around with cloning". I hope you'll listen and or read them. Remember, we are created beings, not accidents of materialistic processes.

November 20, 2017

Congress, Atheism, and Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Jared Huffman, a Democrat Congressman from California, recently "came out" as a Humanist. There is no appreciable difference between Humanists and atheists, though some theists call identify as Humanists because they have a low view of the Bible and elevate humans to the highest priority. Huffman does not go on record as endorsing atheism, but says he does not believe in God. He seems to be politically timid, keeping mum about his beliefs for years (atheists generally do not get elected). He felt he had to finally admit his views.

The Democrat party has a disdain for God and the Bible, and Huffman believes in homosexual "rights", he is pro-abortion, and just what you'd expect from a leftist in general. Identifying as a Humanist, or atheist (or maybe he'll change to agnostic), should fit in well with the current political climate.

I want to interject something here. Atheists are materialists, rejecting God and the supernatural (except for those who identify as atheists but still believe in such things, go figure) and most are pro-abortion. It seems to be that they are amazingly inconsistent by supporting abortion if this is the only life anyone has. Wouldn't it be consistent for atheists as a whole to be vehemently pro-life instead of denying the unborn a chance at living? Just a thought.

As we have seen here many times, professing atheists are appallingly bad at using logic, but claim to be the purveyors of reason. Some samples of Huffman's comments help illustrate what I mean. First, "...I don’t believe my religion is all that important to the people I represent..." Sounds like an off the cuff remark, not something that has been communicated to him by all those people. It is also a hasty generalization, such as used when saying that all 8,000+ of those who "Like" The Question Evolution Project are hateful bigots."

...and I think there’s too much religion in politics." Really? Politics is made up of people, it is not a monolith, such as some people make of science. People have foibles, views, biases, altruism, presuppositions — and religious beliefs. Atheists (and so-called Humanists) are on a secularist jihad to remove any semblance of Christianity from American society. Huffman's constituents, if there are any Christians left in the area he represents, should be alarmed.

Also note this remark in the leftist Washington Post“On Thursday, he will release a statement saying he is a Humanist, a loose philosophy based on the idea that humans should work to improve society and live ethically, guided by reason, not necessarily by anything supernatural.” This is not only a question-begging epithet (subtly saying that Humanists/atheists use "reason" and people who believe in God reject reason), but it is also poisoning the well and manipulating emotions: you don't want to admit that you're a theist and have people think you're stupid, unlike The Mighty Atheist™, do you?

Atheism is illogical, inconsistent, and irrational, and it lacks the necessary preconditions of human experience. Those preconditions are only found in the biblical worldview, beginning with creation. If Jared Huffman decides to say he's an agnostic, well, that worldview is also lacking in reason. This tinhorn is doing the politician thing. Such doubletalk is typical of atheists, to say something without coming out and being direct so he cannot be pinned down.

Dr. Albert Mohler has an insightful analysis of the Jared Huffman situation in The Briefing. It's free to download, listen online, or read the transcript. I hope you will do so, just click on "The Briefing 11-14-17".



November 7, 2017

Grief and Pain from the Texas Shooter

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article contains a time-sensitive link that may expire soon, at which point, it will be deleted.

The murders of people in Sutherland Springs, Texas, has stirred many emotions. Grief, pain, anger, and others. It has also raised questions about how a loving God could allow this, what were the motives, and just...why? We will never have all the answers tied up in a neat package. We can find some of them.


Christians have hope and comfort despite grief such as caused by Kelley the atheist in Sutherland, Texas
Credit: Pixabay / MissSuss
At this writing, the motives are not known. I'm not going to varnish this, we already know that the killer was a seriously disturbed, violent atheist. Some are saying the motive was because of a domestic situation, others say "unknown" and "uncertain". The rampage may have been far worse if the shooter was not interrupted by the heroic actions of Stephen Willeford. If the motive was due to hatred of his mother-in-law, he could have killed only her elsewhere. The fact that he did this rampage during a church worship service speaks volumes about his moral fiber, and of society today.

Christians have been asking us to pray for the families and the community. (Of course, the leftist governor of New York is politicizing and ridiculing prayer, but we seen many times that the left has disdain for Bible believers.) Still, people are hurting. We can pray that they are comforted and that their faith remains strong. God is still on his throne, and there will be healing and ultimate Judgement. Kelley reportedly killed himself after the massacre, but his eternal problems are just beginning.

The day after the massacre, Ken Ham wrote a short post , "We Now Grieve with a Texas Church". This contains two free downloads: an e-book and a video in two parts. Although I have not read and watched the items, I can say that the process was easy. I hope they will help those who are hurting and have questions.

I'm going to take us on a side trail before I conclude this article.

The killer was an atheist. Not only that, but he apparently knew the truth of God's Word and rejected in. Someone will undoubtedly object, "There is no evidence that he did his killing in the name of atheism!", or some such. A similar objection is raised when Christians point out that the greatest mass murderers were either atheists, Darwinists, or both, bringing to mind what I call the "No True Atheist Fallacy".

Whether a proclamation of atheism was made or not, Kelley and other atheists have a faulty moral compass — they have no consistent, ultimate standard of morality. Indeed, there was really nothing of significance to stop Kelley, Breivik, McVeigh, Dahmer, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others from killing people. I have insisted for some time now that atheists are becoming more strident and angry, and expect that their violence will only increase. Their time is short, and the final Judgement is coming.

When I posted this link about the atheist killer at The Question Evolution Project, a venomous atheopath shared the post to his own page for his ongoing purpose of ridicule. Note his comment, which I highlighted in yellow (click for larger, if needed):



This is outrageous on several levels, and illustrates several scriptural truths (John 8:44, 2 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 2:14). First, not the slightest indication of remorse for the shooting, nor regret that it was done by one of his own kind. Second, people are responsible for their own actions (a concept that leftists do not seem to realize any longer — and most atheists are leftists, by the way). Third, what is the "religious right"? It is a vague phrase used to elicit fear and anger by those who wish to manipulate others who are driven by emotion instead of reason. Fourth, it is a red herring fallacy, a distraction. Fifth, atheists do not trust other atheists. EDIT: To see how this reprobate proved me right, click here.

I do not say this lightly, especially since the term is far overused today, but based on that comment and others this guy has made: he is evil. Not as bad as Kelley, but it would not surprise me in the least to learn that he approves of the murders. Yes, I've seen professing atheists applaud the deaths of Christians.

Dr. Albert Mohler said:
In one very important dimension, this demonstrates why the Christian worldview is so utterly different than every other worldview. Atheism, for instance, must affirm that, at its base, human life is merely a series of accidents. There is no Creator, so there is no human being made in the Creator’s image. Of course atheists would clearly classify this murderous attack in Sutherland Springs, Texas, as evil, but they have no real ability to understand or to embrace the notion of evil with any coherence. Evil is essentially a theological category.
When an atheist does bother to say something is evil, he or she is inadvertently standing on the Christian worldview! Atheism has no consistent moral standard, and is irrational. No wonder they have to use our ultimate standard.

Now we're back to the main trail, and I will conclude this article.

There is hope and comfort in Jesus. Dr. Albert Mohler has an excellent article (excerpted above) that I hope you will read. Click on "Tragedy in Texas: Christian Testimony in the Face of Evil". We have hope and comfort. Those who deny God have no hope, but only a terrifying eternal destiny unless they repent.



November 5, 2017

Leftist Science Industry Rejects Research On Motherhood

Science is supposed to be a search for knowledge, with scientists considering evidence, proposing hypotheses, then running them up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes them. When ideas are refuted, they accept the changes and try something else. Problem is, that scenario is fictitious. (For that matter, when people claim that "science has proved" something are showing their ignorance of the philosophy and methodology of science.) Scientists, medical doctors, and others have refuted consensus views and been resisted. For example, Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that the mortality rate of women giving birth could be drastically reduced with antiseptics, but he was ignored by the establishment.

Scientific research supports the bond between mothers and children, but leftists reject it
Sara and Her Mother with the Baby, Mary Cassat, 1901
Scientists and the secular scientific establishment seem to be increasingly biased nowadays, especially to viewpoints propagated by leftists. Something that is in opposition to the Bible is celebrated, even when they try to slap leather with God and shoot themselves in the foot with fake science. A report of what Bible believers already knew, that daughters need their fathers, was touted as a new scientific finding.

Erica Komisar is a Jewish psychoanalyst who works in Manhattan, New York. She presented some scientific work about the bond between mothers and children, and how it continues after birth. He research was resisted. Why? She's not a professing Christian or a biblical creationist (secularists and leftists detest us). I suspicion that this may give some doubt to the sacrament of abortion, which is sacred among leftists and other secularists. Indeed, the pseudoscience of evolution is used to give abortion is given "scientific" credence.

Dr. Albert Mohler inspired me to write the above linked post on fathers and daughters, and he put a burr under my saddle to write this post as well. Now I'm going to send you to his podcast, The Briefing, which is free to listen online, download, or read the transcript. It follows his discussion on the Manhattan terrorist attack, third item down. Look for "Inconvenient science: Secular left refuses to acknowledge research on motherhood".


September 20, 2017

Atheists Distrust Atheists — With Good Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is no secret that the public has trust issues with atheists, and also with the secular science industry. This is nothing new, and there are still laws on the books that prohibit atheists from holding some elected public offices. (Ironic, most atheists erroneously claim that atheism is not a religion, but keeping them out of office violates their religious rights.) There was a time when the assertion of atheism was shocking and put people to the one making the declaration, but not so much these days. They still score low in polls.


The public distrusts atheists, and atheists distrust other atheists

People are reluctant to trust atheists. Do they ride their horses side saddle? Put their pants on both legs at once instead of one leg at a time? Steal booze from homeless winos? No more than anyone else that I'm aware. They do earn their bad reputations, however. The mass-murdering dictators of the 20th century were mostly atheists (Hitler was not an atheist, he was an occultist at best), Norwegian murderer Brevik was an atheist Darwinist, cult leader Jim Jones was an atheist, Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist and Darwinist, and there are plenty more. Internet trolling, with its inherent anonymity, shows extreme hatred of God, Christians, and especially creationists from atheists. I think they're on the web because they're unemployable, and have time on their hands. Further, there is a noticeable parallel between atheism and Satanism. No, it's not just a matter of theists hating atheists who happen to believe differently.

Respect and trust have to be earned. This one's trust and respect levels are in the negative numbers.
Click for larger. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.
The secular science industry is dominated by atheists, and they rely on atheistic presuppositions in the pursuit of evolutionary science (for example, see "The Bad Complexion of the Secular Science Industry" and "Science Needs Serious Repair"). Then, they commence to pontificating that evolution negates God, tell the lie that archaeology disproves the Bible, and so on.

Am I suggesting that all atheists are an unbridled herd of homicide, waiting to stampede to death and glory? Not hardly! Although I have never encountered an atheist that is unwilling to lie, I'll allow that many have high personal moral standards. Someone commented that he'd trust a certain atheist alone with his wife. Others have made remarks that they know atheists who are moral people, and can act morally upright in a manner that shames many professing Christians.

Atheists are none too fond of each other in the area of trust. Strange that they wouldn't trust their own kind, what with being united in hatred of God, "religion", and so on. Speaking of God, the answer for the distrust of atheists is found in the Bible. God has given us each a conscience, and the law is written on the hearts of people (Rom. 2:15). Deniers of God are actively suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-19). Atheists know who and what they are, deep inside, and that they have a faulty moral compass. Really, it should not be surprising that they distrust each other. This is actually confirming the truth of Scripture! I'm sure that puts a burr under their collective saddles.

This article was inspired by Dr. Albert Mohler, whose name keeps cropping up in my material lately. His September 18, 2017 episode of The Briefing had him discussing articles in The Guardian and others . He also gave some Christian worldview perspective on this. You can read the transcript, download or listen to the podcast online. The part under discussion here is at the beginning, but the entire podcast is interesting and not too long. To read or listen, click on "Why atheists don’t trust other atheists and what this reveals about moral intuition".
  

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.



March 4, 2017

Leftists Using the Arts for Propaganda and Bullying

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Here is another post inspired by my buddy, Dr. Albert Mohler.

"He's your buddy, Cowboy Bob?"

Sure! He comes to Kingston, New York now and then. We go out for nachos, have a few beers, throw darts, and discuss theological matters. It's fun.

Actually, he has no idea that I even exist. I'd like to have a few hours discussing some things with him, though.

Have you ever noticed that people in the arts tend to be politically left and morally liberal? Woodstock, the founders of the famous rock music festivals, is just a few miles away from me. Lots of artsy stuff, leftover hippies, strange shops — my wife and I feel creeped out just driving through there. Naturally, their vote is overwhelmingly Democrat. (For that matter, the state of New York hasn't voted for a Republican since Ronald Reagan in 1984. If New York became a "red state", I think Woodstock would relocate to California.) Artists seem to engage in all sorts of leftist causes, including anti-Christian, anti-family, and pro-abortion.

So anyway. Hollywood liberals consider themselves purveyors of goodness and light. Of course, watch the material that comes out of there, and you'll be hard pressed to find many pictures with traditional or especially Christian values. They are thrilled to bash Donald Trump and other Republicans, and will do so for the next seven years and eleven months. There are a few Christians and Conservatives in Hollyweird, but most have to kowtow to the majority or remain unemployed.

Hollywood liberals Oscars agenda platform
Made with the template at Custom Medal Maker
On a recent episode of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler noticed that novelist John Irving urged the leftists at the Oscars to use their public platform. Somehow, the Hollywood elite consider themselves to be representatives of the arts. Not that they're vainglorious or anything, presuming that everyone in the arts is in full agreement with them. They're essentially claiming that it's their duty to spread their version of morality. However, they do this through verbal attacks, financial bullying, condoning violence, lying, and more.

Hollywood people are increasingly vocal about their disrespect for traditional values, and are promoting their own agendas. For example, Disney is making a children's movie with a blatant homosexual scene, and sexuality of any kind should not be pushed on kids. Do you think attitudes in Hollywood has anything to do with the ratings dip for the Oscars and their Trump bashing?

While the leftists in the arts are turning the volume up to eleven, many of us reg'lar folk are losing interest in the way they use their celebrity status for political and moral agendas. As if they actually knew anything about real people who work for a living, Christians, Conservatives, or anything else.


Subscribe in a reader