Stormbringer's Thunder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Professing atheists riding the owlhoot trail are frequently claiming to be purveyors of "science" and "reason", but often displaying an inability to understand either. People with even a rudimentary understanding of logic can see their posturing for what it is. ( Even after having their fallacies pointed out , some t inhorns deny that there is anything wrong with their Mighty Atheist Intellects™ by denying having made the fallacies, or even trying to cover up by commit ting more . Some of us don't cotton to wasting our time on them .) One of their many fallacies atheists use is over-generalization, such as saying that the recent ISIS terrorist attacks on Paris are a reason to outlaw all religion . Oh, please. There are Christians who get into battles of trying to out-evidence the other side, but those of us who use presuppositional apologetics take a different approach. One reason atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, Deists, peop...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article is primarily about arrogant atheists, but there are also arrogant agnostics who side with them when maligning Christians. (Yes, I know that there are subdivisions of atheist and agnostic beliefs, but those strike me as arbitrary and inconsistent. The kind of agnostic that says, "I don't know if there is a God, but I'm open to the possibility" seems to be harder to find.) Some can't make up their minds if they're atheist or agnostic, flip-flopping between the two positions, but still delight in attacking Christians — especially biblical creationists. When you wander into territory on the Web controlled by atheists, you'll invariably find posts by tinhorns who think they're geniuses because they are raising things about the Bible that they consider contradictions (which have been answered time and again for centuries), items that they reckon to be unfair (based on taking things out of context and subjecting them t...

"Humanists" (generally atheists) are making a rude gesture to Christians by having their so-called " National Day of Reason ", fallaciously pretending that being an atheist makes you "reasonable", and being a Christian makes you unable to reason, on the same day as the American "National Day of Prayer". Of course, they already have their holiday, it's April 1 , but I reckon they chose that day simply to be obstreperous. Atheists are getting more obnoxious all the time. Matt Slick of CARM was going to be involved in the National Day of Prayer on the Utah Capitol steps, but the atheists had already reserved that space . On April 27, 2015,  Matt issued a debate challenge to the Idaho Humanist Association .  To demonstrate that Idaho Humanists are confident, respectful, and rational, he was answered with a stampede of logical fallacies and outright libel. Christians get that a lot, especially when we can point out how those who claim to...

— by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The religion of atheism seems to attract a high percentage of deviants because they have no consistent foundation for morality. One way this can be seen is that, when pressed, atheists cannot actually account for morality itself . If you examine the Web, Facebook, Weblogs and so on, you'll find many examples of obscenity and hatred toward God and his people. US Geological Survey Although they claim that they can be " good without God ", the words and actions of so many Internet atheists belie that claim. This is the opposite of the truth .Their moral compass is situational and based on whatever is expedient at the time. Living in societies that are founded on Christian morality, they are actually borrowing from the Christian worldview when they say that something is right or wrong. There comes a point when God essentially says, " Your will be done", and gives them over to their depraved minds. Atheism is irrational and in...

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen "But, I held strongly to the view that it was an opportunity to expose the well-intending Ken Ham and the support he receives from his followers as being bad for Kentucky, bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind — I do not feel I’m exaggerating when I express it this strongly." — Bill Nye   "...When I read the deliberate malicious stupid relentless lying evil from hypocrite Sorensen I start to wish that hell really exists. Because he will go there if it does if he does not repent of his hatred towards all people who criticise his online aggression and arrogance whilst wearing 'Christian' ie 'Bible defending' clothing. " The Question Evolution Project is a Cesspit of Hate as I have demonstrated many times. "Those caught in Bob's cesspit should get out while they can if they have any sense and if they are real Christians." — An irrational Stalker, and Bill Nye...

Although touted as a "great scientist", many people do not know that Darwin's formal schooling was not in science, but in theology, where he soared to the heights of mediocrity. His rejection of God, who is revealed in the Bible, is severely lacking in logic. It is fundamentally flawed by naturalistic presuppositions and by emotional excuses. His journey of rejection is similar to other agnostics and to many atheists who are not actually using reason for their rejection of God. Besides, people like that are lying to themselves and to the rest of us, because they really do know that God exists (Romans 1.20-22). Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator. Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more tha...

Will you kindly define "atheism" or "atheist"? I have used the most commonly accepted standard definitions of "atheist" and been hammered. In fact, when I posted the video clip of William Lane Craig quoting the same standard definition , I was told that he was wrong and playing "semantic games". Well, how is he playing semantic games, and how am I wrong, when using the standard definition ? (Well, "The denial of the existence of God" is stronger than the definition that I have used, "Someone who believes that there is no God". Pretty similar, though.) The standard definition fits word meaning and historical usage . "Nonononono! Idiot! You don't know what an atheist is! You don't know what atheism means!" Retract your claws, Claude. Enlighten me. "Atheism is the absence of belief  in gods!" Uh...I see. The definition has been rewritten. Unfortunately, the revisionist mem...

I was going to give these topics a rest, but something came up. On a previous post, Zach made a comment, and I am excerpting it here. His first sentence is an answer to a question I had asked him. Hope you're not embarrassed, but I want to give you a more complete response than the comments section would allow: My lack of belief in the supernatural is pretty much complete - I have never seen any reason to attribute a supernatural cause to phenomena. I suppose I rule out supernatural explanations because once you let one in, where do you stop? I look at an event I do not understand and go immediately to natural causes. Even if I can't figure it out, I still would assume it had a natural explanation. I'm worried that if someone started attributing causes to supernatural events, they would skip over the whole 'natural cause' thing and go straight for the supernatural, because technically everything is potentially explainable by an omnipotent being, no? ...