Showing posts with label CARM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CARM. Show all posts

March 19, 2014

Dan Barker's Fundamentally Flawed Rationale


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, philosophical excuses and bad theology, so several visits would have been quite interesting.

After this, Dan Barker was on "Stand Up for the Truth" prior to a debate with Dr. Jerry Bergman of the Genesis Foundation. This was more formal, and they discussed not only his justifications for atheism, but how the Freedom from Religion Foundation conducts itself. You can listen/download here. Barker was caught in some glaring inconsistencies. Mike LeMay pointed out some of those in an article. One thing that I don't think anyone caught was how he claimed to be for everyone's religious freedom, but when Obamacare violates religious freedom, there's not a peep from FFRF. Double standard much? But the SUFT team does not let Christians off the hook because bad theology and lack of commitment (and understanding) on the part of Christian teachers that helps give us people like Dar Barker.

Somewhat related is the next interview on "Stand Up for the Truth", where Dr. Bergman is interviewed about the religion of secular humanism, Barker and other related topics. You can listen/download the Dr. Bergman discussion here.


January 14, 2013

Discussion with an Atheist

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:


October 23, 2012

Atheism and the "Gotcha!" Game

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 going to be the ones to destroy God and Christianity. Sorry, Skippy, it's been tried by grown-ups much more intelligent than you for centuries, and we're still standing strong.

A variation is when they will ask a question that a Christian or a creationist cannot answer, and then use logical fallacies to "prove" that there is no God. I remember hearing a caller on Matt Slick's radio show (CARM.org) drop something on Matt at the very end of the show when the closing music was playing. Matt had not heard of the subject (nor had I, but big deal) and asked the caller to e-mail him information so he could research it. The atheist cackled with glee, and then bragged on his Weblog that he has stumped Matt. In all cases, Christians and creationists cannot know everything about everything. What a ridiculous standard to impose. It is hypocritical as well, since they would not make such unreasonable demands of other atheists, often bleating, "It's OK to admit that you don't know something". True — but be consistent.

Second, they play "Gotcha!" with personal attacks. This is even more outlandish than the first, and often occurs when the attacker has been shown that atheism is fundamentally flawed, or how sciences does not support evolution. The game is simple: Complain about character. It does not require accurate knowledge about Biblical teachings. If a Christian corrects the atheist, the player will just accuse him of being a hypocrite and making baby Jesus cry. The "logic" seems to run like this: "You are not a good enough Christian to please me. Christianity is false. There is no God!"

Of course, they exhibit appalling lack of knowledge of what the Bible really teaches, and requires occasional quote mining of Bible verses. When bitter, illogical apostates try these things, it's a toss-up whether they're being pitiful or being amusing . Some even claim to have been evangelical Christians at one time. Well... Raising your hand during an emotional moment to "accept Jesus" does not count, sorry to say. Nor does just attending a church or being a member of some religious organization.

The "Gotcha!" game is often played when atheopaths are bested in logic and are shown how atheism (and its ugly cousin, Deism) are incoherent, irrational worldviews. Since their worldviews do not have the necessary preconditions of human experience and are inconsistent, they borrow from the biblical creationist worldview. They hate this fact.

August 20, 2012

I Got Your "Extraordinary Evidence" Right Here, Pal!

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 agitated (in a good way) here:


But for me, this goes deeper. Koukl gave me a football and I started running with it.

I have said that many atheists are control freaks. They want to tell you how to run your own site or ministry (ask Matt Slick of CARM about that sometime), control the conversations and so on. They are constantly looking to "one up" and get the upper hand over you. Since they can seldom win with reason, they resort to manipulation, personal attacks, outright lies, intimidation and especially ridicule. (You know, if you can't destroy the message, destroy the messenger). I wonder if even they know what they hope to accomplish with that petty nonsense?

They have their presuppositions that there is no God, no supernatural entities, no miracles (and yet they believe in evolution despite the complete absence of evidence). Their worldview is based on naturalism (materialism).

The Christian is supposed to base his or her thinking on the Word of God (2 Cor. 10.5). We have presuppositions that God exists, miracles happen, that Bible is not only true, but our ultimate standard, foundational to knowledge, and other presuppositions.

Whenever atheists want to debate science or philosophy (or a mix) on "neutral ground", it's not happening, Hattie. They want the Christian to abandon God's Word, but they still keep to their naturalistic presuppositions. In essence, they want proof of God's existence (Romans 1.19-22), the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, evidence against evolution, the reliability of the Bible and all sorts of other things. They make themselves the ultimate standard, while God is in the dock, waiting for their decision about him! But don't be fooled, you can give evidence after evidence, and they have rescuing device after rescuing device (that is, excuses).

Dr. Jason Lisle pointed out something that really struck me. The disciples were with the risen Lord, but some still doubted. How much more evidence can someone need? Belief is not so much a matter of evidence, but a matter of the will. People disbelieve because they want to.

Now, back to the original contention: "extraordinary evidence". First, who made that "rule" in the first place? Second (as was previously mentioned), it is arbitrary. Third, not only is the unbeliever arrogantly judging God, but has upped the ante; is it difficult enough to play his game and have him reject evidence. The unwitting Christian has just accepted the fact that the unbeliever is going to make it even more difficult to convince him. Oh, they pretend to be reasonable, and that is one reason the Christian will fall into the evidence argument trap in the first place.

Christian apologists forget the first part of one of their favorite verses (1 Peter 3.15 NIV). We're ready to give a defense, and apologetic, for the faith, but we forget that Jesus is Lord. I am all in favor of giving evidence, but it must be in a framework that God's Word is true, and in obedience to it. There is no "neutral ground".

March 25, 2012

Are Atheists Control Freaks?

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. First, what are your impressions of the article, Bob? Give me a quick summary and your opinion on it."

Notice how he tried to flip the thing back onto me? Do not want. See, atheists (and evolutionists) like this must control the conversation and the subject. Later, he was demanding my summary of the article.

I replied, "
You tried to turn my challenge around on me, and I'm not having it. All I did was challenge people to read and attempt to discredit the science at PiltdownSuperman.com, and you demanded that I write an article summary so 'we can discuss it'. Why? So you can argue with ME about what the author said? Get real. Atheists are such control freaks and manipulators." Yes, I admit to being a bit irked.

That's right, I let him know that I was not only annoyed at the attempt at manipulation, but I was not fooled by it. His next response was, "If I wanted to spend my life debunking creationist websites, I'd start my own blog. I'm more interested in discussion with people, not articles." Nice attempt to save the wounded dignity.

First, I am expected to let the atheist take control. Then, I am supposed to discuss an article. The hilarious part was that he implied that he had the ability to debunk the linked articles on anthropology, astronomy, paleontology, microbiology, biology, astrophysics, geology, biometrics, genetics, eugenics, logic, and more. I have seen similar bluster before, and receive hot air in response. I ask them why they are afraid of reading such material. Perhaps they will see that atheism, materialism, uniformitarianism, naturalism and other presuppositions fail miserably as worthwhile explanations. I can hope that they will see the truth of Psalm 53.1-3, Prov. 1.7 and Romans 1.20-22. If they will drop their misotheist presuppositions and honestly listen, there is still a chance that they can learn about the love of God and the sacrifice of Christ.

November 19, 2011

Is Atheism Another Form of Satanism?

"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, blind hate and sin make people stupid and they cannot reason; how else can someone justify the attitude that attacking the individual or the God he or she serves is equal to a logical argument, capice?). Then the conversation went to minority positions like atheism, Islam and homosexuality gaining power and imposing their will on others.


I have to add a comment about a remark I made in the broadcast, and at the top of this page. Ready? Good. There is dispute about Aleister Crowley being a Satanist or not, and the actual meaning of the quote. Some claim that it is simply about the Thelema religion that he manufactured, and it means, "Follow your own path". Sorry, Seymour, it still strikes me as a proclamation of selfishness; if he had meant "follow your own path", then he could have simply said that.

Sounds like a grand awful mess, I know, but it will make more sense after you hear it. Since DivShare failed again, here is the MP3 download link (ignore the "unable to play" error). Here is a link to the entire show.


August 20, 2011

Good Atheist Caller and Evidence

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:

August 14, 2011

Arrogant Atheist Ambush

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, however, you are like Andrew the atheist who kept calling, being obtuse and annoying everyone, you're going to have problems. In fact, Andrew called so often, Matt was getting tired of the calls and he had complaints from listeners. But he also had comments from some listeners that they liked Andrew the atheist making a fool of himself.

In the following clip, after Andrew did the typical atheist trick (again!) of reading other uninformed, thoughtless Websites and then calling in to challenge Matt with their nonsense. Then, he wanted to arrogantly go on about alleged contradictions. Matt tried to get Andrew to define "contradiction". After a while, tensions rose, Matt spoke sternly to Andrew (again), and he hung up (again). This clip begins after Andrew left. Matt continued with the point that he wanted to make about contradictions, Website copying, a message to atheists and comments about arrogance in this four minute clip:


If someone wants to debate, challenge, discuss, inquire or whatever else, go for it. If you're courteous, you won't have a problem. The "Faith and Reason" times and contact information are here. Unless you're of of those types that wants a debate, but you're all talk and no action, that is.

In my case, I called about atheists and my experiences. I called on July 26 and August 4, 2011 to discuss the tricks atheists pull online. These calls focused on my Twitter experiences. I thought I was giving him new information because he does not personally use Twitter all that much, but what I described is nothing new for him. Atheists, we're onto your tricks, and you're not fooling anyone. Note: I tried some adjustments and you can hear the occasional spike distortion. Also, I added a call I made a few days later at the end. This clip is just over seven minutes long:

June 8, 2011

No Atheist Experience


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. Listen up, Poindexter, one last time, slowly and with style. Are you paying attention? Good. I am not the one that was bragging about being the sharpest bulb in the drawer and wanting a debate! Also, I never made such a challenge, agreed to or knew about these "terms" that you manufactured. With your "logic", I wouldn't be surprised if Atheist Experience is embarrassed when you make yourself the east end of a horse going west. On the other hand, some atheists are practically making this atheopath into a folk hero; one site increased my number of hits by at least two or three. I was so impressed!

So, I called Matt to tell him of this guy's logic fail. Want to know what he said? I bet you do! It is in the audio clip, below. It only lasts about a minute. (Snicker) The entire hour is here.

May 6, 2011

Bravado Incarnate

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
  • Self contradicting
  • Broke basic rules of logic
  • Interrupting and talking over the show's host right after bragging, "We don't do that in the UK"
  • Creating new definitions of terms that only exist in his mind
  • Bouncing around topics like a table tennis ball in a clothes dryer
  • And, the most typical is the refusal to even consider the possibility that a Christian can be right about anything
If you want to see his profane bravado, you can go herehere, here and here the targets of the links proving my points have been disabled. I can guess why... What an astonishingly huge ego! If you see the stunningly vapid comments (including "Matt Slick was pathetic"), there is an accusation in the newest one by one of Norman's sock puppets that a commenter is Matt himself. Now, why is it inconceivable (yes, that word does mean what I think it does) that more than one or two people can disagree with an atheist? 

There is an amazing accusation that the Weblog owner made against another atheist that it was me in disguise (I get accused of using multiple fake names all the time by people who use multiple fake names. However, most of mine are clearly marked so they can be traced back to me.)  Here, they are accusing someone else of being Matt Slick. Guess what, Poindexter? Matt told me personally that he does not post comments because there are impostors.

Also, the comments are full of braggadocio and of vacuous atheists uniting in hate. My feeling is that people who would not be able to tolerate each other in other things are self-congratulating, "Good job! You really told him!", for the sake of hating God. What is it with pride and egos with these atheists? The ones who want real discussions should stay far away from this type!

By the way, Slick said to him, "You hate God". He denied it. Liar (link disabled).

Now, I hate to tell Matt this, but I felt that he dropped the ball on a couple of points. But he's the one that has done real debates, not me. And this was a "cold call" from a revved up, angry hatebag who had prepped himself for the call.

So, if he thinks Matt was not a challenge, he should move up the ladder. I would like to see this deluded egomaniac humiliate himself further (even though I spanked him several times in public myself, but he still could not learn basic logic). How about calling Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason? Or better yet, call another outspoken Calvinist and apologist, James White? They would send you crying and hiding in Norman the Paranoid Troll's basement with the poisonous talking wall fungus, and you would still scream, "Victory is mine!" Or even go on "Unbelievable" with Justin Brierley and show the world what an intellectual giant you really are.

By the way, Matt told me to tell you (remember, he does not post himself) that he wants you to call back and show people again what atheism does to the mind.

Anyway, I am done with this brain damaged maniac and liar. I have better things to do; harvesting my crops on Farmville is more intellectually stimulating that dealing with this clown, capice?

Safe linkIf you want to listen to the "discussion", click here, it starts about 17 minutes 55 seconds in.

Addendum: He's laughing at me laughing at him (also disabled). For students of logic, take a look. Count the ad hominem attacks (from the beginning), look for straw man arguments, misrepresentation and just downright bad writing. Reinhold Niebuhr said, "No amount of contrary evidence seems to disturb humanity's good opinion of itself." That is definitely true of this blighter.

April 17, 2011

Atheist Standards of Morality - Part 3 and a Challenge

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 Comfort's "Atheist Central" were even more vicious than usual. (One reason that I do not spend much time there anymore is that their moderation is inconsistent. They allow ad hominem attacks despite their posted policies. That makes it almost impossible to have a decent conversation. So, I get them angry in my attempts to shock them into thinking. I fail.) Some cafones are so desperate to hate, so petty, that they will come up with any excuse, no matter how flimsy.


"Yeah, we know, Cowboy Bob. You hate atheists and think we're all bad people!"


Actually, I have had similar comments. When I get hit with misrepresentation and outright dishonesty, I withdraw from the conversation because the other party is either downright stupid or simply dishonest. Or both.


Addendum: One of my atheist trolls has an incomprehensible raving that seems to say that I am making this up, that what follows is a "gimmick". Denial is another aspect of schizophrenia.

There is a public "discussion" forum on Facebook that provided me with some screen shots of their behavior. It is allegedly for Christians and atheists to have discussions, but in reality, it's Christian bashing and trolling at its most typical (profanity warning):

This article has been heavily edited since the original post, links are now missing. Some people do not want the truth of their actions to be known.
 
I am humbled to be reading the words of such an intellectual and moral giant.

I could keep going, but this is irritating enough. If people actually want intelligent discussions, then show intelligence. Be rational and logical. Show some respect to those to whom you disagree. Personally, when someone starts in on me, I won't kowtow and try to live up to their concept of a "good Christian" when they are being bad atheists — Waitaminnit! There is no atheist standard of morality to make comparisons with! There is a Christian standard of morality (which atheists disunderstand and misrepresent for the sake of manipulation), but no standards of "measurement" for atheists!



Some basic, simple things that I want to have in a discussion, whether it's about religion, the nature of God, the nature of workplace décor, why the kids should be home at a certain hour, whatever: Listen to what I'm saying and hear where I'm coming from. Disagree later, and with some semblance of intelligence, without attacking and ridicule. It makes for a better discussion experience. When I demonstrate your folly, crying to your piranha friends does not help you learn, does not help me learn, does not help the process of discourse. However, it does make me laugh at your childishness.


Now that I've wasted this much time on obstreperous, recalcitrant Internet atheists, I have my aforementioned challenge to the mature, thoughtful, intelligent atheists. Are you ready? Start a "club", or a "guild". Get together and intellectualize the issues, flex your intellectual prowess, have a great time. But have courtesy rules, and "police your own". It would be nice to see this grow, as well. "The comments by this atheist fall short of the standards of the Atheist Guild and do not represent all of us". Do you think it is worth a try, or am I just being silly?


Anyway, here is Matt Slick telling me about wayward atheists, bad logic, manipulation and the need to follow rules. It runs just over ten minutes. (The original, unedited almost-hour-long version is here. I did not need to edit much of my content this time, and I believe I left his untouched.) We never did quite get my exact question answered, but I don't care, it was fun:

April 16, 2011

Atheist Standards of Morality - Part 2

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 from various places around the globe, including England and Australia. Don't be afraid. If you're going to be civil, not insulting him or his family, sticking to the topic, take time to actually dialog instead of rant, you won't get spanked.

April 7, 2011

CARM - Discussion with a Deist


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.

December 26, 2010

Does Atheism Cause Brain Damage?

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". You want to blaspheme God? OK. He will not fight with you forever.

Addendum: The cowardly Twitter trolls' responses (ie, attacks), the answer to my question appears to be "YES!" These lovers of "reason" and "logic" were posting, in essence, "You're a doo doo head!" and putting words in my mouth. (No, I did not say that infants or animals are born Christian.) People are desperate to mock instead of make an intelligent response. Addendum 2: It may be the other way around, autism influence atheism!

Arrivederci!

November 20, 2010

Hate Mail and Comments

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 that the full impact of the insult is lessened, sometimes even lost. So, in an effort to help the offended find a particularly appropriate and well written retort and put-down, I offer these pre-developed insults for your viewing (insulting) pleasure.
Although he has an apologetics ministry and deals with more subjects than I do (which includes false religions and heresies), it is still very useful. So, I am going to steal it. Well, sort of. Click here, follow the instructions on his page, come back here and leave your insult. No, Norman, you do not e-mail him the insults intended for me, you put them in the comments of this Weblog.

October 8, 2010

Do You Really Want to Know?


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:

September 10, 2010

Stephen Hawking Nonsense


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.

August 24, 2010

Separation of Mosque and State


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's tail about politically correct approaches, so I proceed to tell the truth as I see it.

Here's a double standard. Franklin Graham was disinvited from a prayer service at the Pentagon because he was honest about his beliefs and said that Islam is an evil religion. Muslims can have prayers inside the Pentagon's memorial chapel; the chapel that was built as a memorial to the victims of the maniacs in the so-called "religion of peace".

Is America becoming a Muslim nation? (Katie did an article you should see, "Sharia in New York".) What else can explain the coddle-mad efforts to placate and make Muslims comfortable? Even the attack on Ft. Hood is not being called Muslim terrorism by the lamestream media.

It's time to tell the truth and to stand up for our rights and values. If we get some heat for it, let's give it back. Doubled.

Matt Slick of CARM has some enlightening things to say about Islam:




Addendum: Another article on this subject is here. And this one.
Also, since I'm such a "bad man" for my thoughts and feelings (and wanting to respect the people of New York), take a look at this video and think again that I'm so wrong.

July 29, 2010

Difficulties for Atheists, Evolutionists and Other Unbelievers

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 have a handle on this stuff yet. Don't make me repeat myself again.

Oh, and when you call, tell him Stormbringer from New York sent you. He'll say, "Who?"

First, we have the TAG argument, the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God. The written version is here, and the audio overview is below (you can hear some sounds from the caller):


Next is the longer one. Information Theory is a huge problem for evolutionists. So is this clip. Not only is the logic devastating, but it's just over 8-1/2 minutes:


If you need the full show that is about an hour long, the link is here.
















Have fun. Arrivederci!

Subscribe in a reader