Stormbringer's Thunder

Dan Barker of the Freedom from Religion Foundation seems like a heckuva nice guy. Unlike so many of the obstreperous atheists on the Web, he is intelligent, respectful and polite. But I am only basing this on a couple of interviews on Christian radio shows that I heard. Still, he does not have a reputation for being nasty. The first one I heard was with Matt Slick of CARM . An attempt to schedule a debate had fallen through, so Dan was a guest in the studio with Matt. There was no specific agenda or topic. To listen to that, click here , but do not click on the "listen now" button. Instead, use the link "Carm_Podcast_2-7" to get the MP3 . Also, Matt had a show where he discussed a debate he had with Barker a few years earlier, that show is here . When hearing this show, I had feelings similar to those that Matt expressed, how so much was touched upon and a week of one-hour shows could stem from it. Barker had numerous instances of bad reasoning, word games, ...

A rare polite atheist called " Matt Slick Live ". It was an interesting discussion, and Matt was showing how atheism is self-refuting. Since there were no callers, Matt and Zack (I wonder if this is the Zack I dialogued with back when this site took comments?) went most of the hour. (If you want to miss the banter, announcements and Matt's computer crash, skip ahead a bit and start at the nine minute mark.) Click here to go to the page , and then get the MP3 at the link as shown below:

There are several ways that I've seen Dawkinsites, Darwin's Junior Stormtroopers, stalkers, Intolerant Tolerants and other vituperative members of the Thought Police play the "Gotcha!" game. Like many of their activities, this is rooted in pride and ego. First, they go to the laughable pooling of ignorance sites of atheism (such as the inane [ir]RationalWiki ) and evolutionism (such as the absurd talk.origins ) to find horrible "proofs" for their worldviews, and try to catch Christians and creationists with such nonsense. (It is very tedious to try to have anything resembling a discussion when someone posts nonsense from one of those sites as if it was a complete refutation of someone's position, but they do not engage in actual discourse.) It's amazing how people with little to no knowledge of theology, psychology, history, philosophy, ancient literature, culture, social customs, language, science and other things seem to think that they are g...

While listening to the August 12, 2012 podcast of " Stand to Reason " with Greg Koukl, I heard something that I could not only use, but fit in quite will with my intellectual and spiritual development. I was pounding the desk and shouting out, "Yeah!". Then I realized that all my co-workers were staring at me. Then I further realized that my outburst only happened in my mind, so everything was fine. Anyway. Greg was going on about the withered old canard, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (popularized by Carl Sagan, a variation on a quote from Laplace, also a variation on a similar quote from Hume). There was something about that saying that struck me about its wrongness, but I did not know why. All I knew was that it was rubbish. Then Greg pointed out that there is substantial arbitrariness to that remark. The speaker demands that you please him or her with the evidence. You can listen to the part of the show that got me all agitat...

Revised 8-20-2012. Buon giorno. I have been wanting to call CARM Radio and ask Matt Slick if he supports my hypotenuse hypothesis: Atheists are control freaks. I have had several instances of control freakness that cause me to wonder if it is more than just a couple of individuals that indulge. My latest experience is typical, so here we go. An atheist decided to try to get to me by insulting my creation science Weblog . (Yeah. Playing the Ridicule Card or otherwise attempting to insult and hurt someone is a frequent opening gambit in lieu of actual thought.) I told him (her?) that it's a Weblog . There are links to assorted articles, many of which are of a technical nature. I dared him (her?) to actually read and debunk the science on the site. So, I rejected his insult and essentially told him to "put up or shut up". Eventually, he said that he would "have a glance at it". Then I received, " Okay, had a read through the first section. Firs...

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." — Aleister Crowley Buon giorno.  I called Matt Slick of CARM on his radio show, and we had a rambling discussion as if we were old pals.  In this edited excerpt, I took out tangents, some pauses and nonessentials that detract from the discussion. Matt and I were both enjoying the topics, and we covered a great deal of ground. The items discussed in the clip include Matt teaching me a new word (" sesquipedalian "), the logical fallacies of evolutionists and atheists, their blind faith remarks, bad evidence (like Lamarckianism and the Miller Experiment ) and the demonic influence on atheists.  I pointed out that one of the foundational points of the LaVey version of Satanism is selfishness. Also, the sin of Lucifer was pride . Obviously, selfishness and pride go well together, and modern arrogant atheists are saturated with pride. This leads to further sin, and to "stupidification" (that is, ...

Matt Slick of CARM had a good atheist caller to his " Faith and Reason " radio show the other day. They dabbled in several topics for half an hour. (Listen to when he finds out that the caller is an atheist.) I thought this segment was good for several reasons. First, because there really are a few atheists who want to have decent conversations with Christians. Second, Matt touched on some important evidences and lines of clear thinking. Third, this caller was actually willing to let Matt state his case and make his points. Fourth, I hope that people will not be afraid to call the show.  The original hour is here , and the segment that I'm talking about is below:

Buon giorno. Here are a couple of audio clips from Matt Slick's "Faith and Reason" radio show. He takes many kinds of calls, whether it's a Christian that wants clarification, a cultist that wants to argue, a Calvinist that wants his Calvinism reinforced — and atheists. I have heard several shows where atheists call in and want to get into some of the heavy philosophical stuff. (When this kind of material goes on for a while, my eyes glaze over and my mind wanders.) Some will give him direct challenges as well. I remember one caller that was so obnoxious and verbally bouncing all over the place, changing definitions and basically making a rational conversation very difficult, Matt told me to give him the message to have him call back so people could see what atheism does to the mind. Good conversations can be had if callers are courteous and have some degree of sense. If you're willing to listen and have a decent exchange, you should have a good call. If, ...

Buon giorno. I wanted to get it nailed down one last time for a certain obstreperous atheist: I have no interest in calling "Atheist Experience", whatever that is. You see, this guy was crying that he was not getting good debate action at the "Stand to Reason" Weblog (if he had a grasp of logic, as well as civility, it would have been different). So, the recommendation was made that he call Matt Slick at CARM . Although I was not the only one to challenge him on this, I was probably the most persistent. As I mentioned earlier , he did so and did a great job at humiliating himself. And had the nerve to brag about it afterward. Agonizing. He called again, which surprised me. With this call, he was less off the rails, but did not understand the (discredited) concept of Lamarckism that he was putting forth. However, he had a logic fail that he tried on me: Since I challenged him to call Matt, I am now obligated to call Atheist Experience twice. Liste...

Warning: If you click the links, you will be subjected to strong profanity. Buon giorno. Why is it that atheists cry, "Victory is mine!" like Stewie Griffin, even when they humiliate themselves? Some in my acquaintance could slam their hand in a car door and still claim that they won a debate with the car. One of the most obstreperous atheists (who does not believe in free speech link disabled ) that I have ever encountered took a challenge (for some reason, I get all the credit, but others challenged him as well) to call Matt Slick's radio show, Faith and Reason (now renamed to " Matt Slick Live ". He was angry that the "kiddie pool" at the "Please Convince Me" Weblog was not challenging enough. Surprisingly, he did not scream or use profanity, something that I fully expected him to do. The show was entertaining and interesting, to say the least. Unfortunately, he was typical of Internet atheists: Rude Arrogant Prideful ...

Buon giorno. After this article, I'm changing the subject for a while. I have a challenge for the intelligent, civil atheists. But I have other things to say first because I have to set this up with examples, capice?   Last time , I provided an audio clip where several problems with Internet atheists were discussed. Some of this problem is of a spiritual nature. On the call that I present below to " Faith and Reason "  " Carm Radio " (Matt Slick of CARM) , I inadvertently set Matt off a bit. I know he was not exasperated with me personally, but rather, with the concepts that I was bringing forward. In my discussions with many people online, we have seen that the majority of Internet atheists are angry, hateful, dishonest and manipulative. Too bad they lost interest in their Korgi Cards so rapidly, and then wander off to bother other people... Recently, I had another writer of a Christian Weblog send me a message. He noted that the atheists at Ray Comfo...

Buona sera. In the first installment of this "series" (which may end after Part 3 ), I used an excerpt from Greg Koulk's "Stand to Reason" radio show/podcast. He was discussing with a caller certain logic fallacies of atheists, and I pointed out that these matched my own experiences fairly well. Now, I am going to expand on that with an excerpt from "Faith and Reason" with Matt Slick. This excerpt is heavily edited. Well, my parts are. I made some attempts at humor, did some "ummm" things and had some other false starts. Those are distracting, so I edited myself, capice? Matt's comments are intact, however. But since some petty trolls think that all Christians are liars, you can check the source material for yourself here . If your time is valuable and you want the essence of the conversation, it is below and runs for less than 7-1/2 minutes: By the way, the challenge is still open for atheists who want to call in. He gets calls ...

Buona sera. In a repeat (archived) program, Matt Slick of CARM spent most of the hour with a caller who was a deist (ninety percent atheist). This was a good discussion. While I do not necessarily agree with all of Matt's Calvinist positions, I do like the way he was sparking the caller to examine his own logic and presuppositions. Since it was not an actual structured debate, the topic wandered a bit. They spent some time on eternal punishment and damnation, and also touched on the reliability of the Bible. Intelligent people will find it interesting. Also, it shows that Matt is not a monster if callers are not obstreperous, capcie? You can find the broadcast here .

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools... Therefore God gave them over... — Paul the Apostle Buon giorno. I hope you had a splendid Christmas. As I had hoped (and promised later, in some instances) the CARM radio show podcast of "Faith and Reason" was released . My discussion with Rev. Matt Slick is below. We discussed if the moral deterioration of blasphemous atheists also leads to brain damage. Also, we talked about Norman (my pet troll), how modern Internet atheists are similar to Muslims, how they are vitriolic and conniving, dishonest, obstreperous, irrational, about Christians being "haters", and more. The talk (well, he talked and I listened, mostly) is about eight minutes long. If you read Romans chapter 1, count the number of times that it says, "God gave them over...

Buona sera. Here is something that I am stealing outright. But it's OK, I'm doing it for my critics. Some of my hate mail (I include comments in this) is, frankly, lame. Yes, I have had a few that had a bit of life to them, and some imagination. Some have been dull, predictable and forged in the feeble minds corrupted by methamphetamine and the fungus on the walls of Mommie's basement. Others have been profane and obscene, so I simply delete them. Matt Slick of CARM to the rescue! He has created a form letter, a Pick-Your-Insult Page: Instead of cogent arguments refuting my alleged errors, the responses I usually get amount to nothing more than a barrage of abuses, accusations, and attacks on my character. This is all fine and dandy except that the various insults are often poorly written, not very logical, lack imagination, and are riddled with various grammatical and spelling errors. Sometimes I cringe as I read the diatribes penned in poor writing, so much so tha...

Buon giorno. Less reading, more listening today, too. (I wanted to do an article about Open ID, but that will have to wait.) Rev. Matt Slick of CARM was interviewing Dr. Gary Habermas on his show "Faith and Reason" ( full podcast is here , and quite interesting). One thing that caught my attention supports my own belief about people with certain belief systems that ask questions about God, the Bible, Jesus, Christianity &c. Are the inquiries sincere? Give two minutes and hear what these two apologists have to say:

Matt Slick of CARM shows the complete collapse of Stephen Hawking's "logic". About ten minutes. Broadcast from September 2, 2010. If the embedded player does not work for you, the podcast MP3 is here . Fortunately, the discussion is at the beginning of the hour where it's easy to find.

Buona sera. OK, clever ones, tell me something. Why is it that we get uppity atheists and snotty "progressives" crying about the "separation of church and state" at the drop of a hat? It's almost at joke status: A rabbi, a priest and a Baptist pastor walked onto City Hall property. An atheist went crying to the ACLU, who promptly filed for an injunction, etc. "Sensitivity" and "political correctness" are absurdly think disguises in efforts to criminalize Christianity and, to some extent, Judaism. (Of course, the Jews have a few thousand years' head start being experienced in persecution before Christians started getting hammered, so they're more used to it. I'm being facetious, you know.) In a broader sense, "political correctness" is an effort to stifle free speech and to dodge productive discussion of important issues. And to squelch values, of course. Then you get sarcastic types like me that don't give a rat...

Buon giorno. Today, I'm going to ask you to spend some time (I have audio clips) and do some thinking (the audio clips contain arguments). I was listening to Rev. Matt Slick of CARM . (He has a radio show called "Faith and Reason" that takes callers and discusses atheism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Islam and other heresies.) On the broadcast for July 22, 2010, they were discussing some things that frankly, I do not understand. I'm planning on listening to the podcast a few more times until I can get the hang of them. So if you want to argue about what is presented, don't ask me, capice? Like I said, Matt takes callers. If you want to challenge him and have a debate, fine, call him up when he's on the air and go for it. He loves that kind of thing. The times and phone numbers are here . You can also send him hate mail, (he loves that, too), or call, or whatever. That link is here . But I'm telling you not to debate with me, because I don't ha...