Showing posts with label agnostic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label agnostic. Show all posts

November 15, 2015

Atheists Display Galactic-Sized Ignorance in Debate

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 tinhorns deny that there is anything wrong with their Mighty Atheist Intellects™ by denying having made the fallacies, or even trying to cover up by committing 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, people who claim both agnosticism and atheism in the same comment, and others detest presuppositional apologetics is that we show how their epistemologies are fundamentally flawed. Those worldviews are incoherent and self-refuting, lacking the necessary conditions of human experience that are found in the Bible. Advocates of atheism and such hate us for showing their flaws, and also for our uncompromising stance on the Bible. Yes, we do believe in using evidence, but in a presuppositional framework and not accepting the lie of "neutral ground". Unbelievers get a mite riled when we point out that they are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves!

Professing atheists often claim to have superior reasoning skills. In a recent debate, their arguments shattered before their eyes.
Thanks to Why?Outreach for the background image of shattered atheism.

At the 2015 Bahnsen Conference, atheists Andrew Breeding, Sean Taylor, and Bruce Gleason debated Christians Paul Viggiano, Sye Ten Bruggencate, and Jeff Durbin. It was an interesting format, with both sides giving presentations, rebuttals, cross-examinations, and so on. Then there were audience questions.

I almost had a case of Cranial-Keyboard Embedment Syndrome early in Bruce Gleason's presentation at the beginning of the debate. He said to watch for logical fallacies, and that the Christians would be making many of them — then he commenced to committing a passel of them himself, including poisoning the well! (One reason I'm mighty skeptical of doing debates is that I call people out on their fallacies, and don't like to let someone build an argument that is faulty from the get-go.) Although the Christians were presumably knowledgeable in spotting fallacies, there was not a great deal of pointing them out.

Also, some of the professed atheists were condescending toward the Christians, and I consider that an attempt at emotional manipulation. It also has elements of poisoning the well, also. 

Let's ride way down the trail to the question and answer session at the end. One of the questions involved evolution, which is a cornerstone for the religion of atheism. The atheist argued from his presuppositions, and also showed that not only does he lack understanding of natural selection, he was using a fallacious comparison. Dr. James White had some very interesting comments on this. 

Know how you go to some sites and they have so many videos embedded, the whole shootin' match slows way down? I reckon that would happen here if I embedded the two videos that are needed, so I'll link to them instead.

To see the video of Dr. White's analysis of the evolution question, click here and go to the 35 minute 20 second mark (the link is supposed to go there anyway, but I wanted to make certain that you knew). After that, he has some analysis of apostate Bart Ehrman's erroneous debate remarks. Also, you can see the video or download the audio on Dr. White's site at this link

As for the debate itself, it runs three hours all told. To watch the video, click here. For audio (embedded or for the download link), you can get that from Apologia Radio's site.

Despite all the proud strutting, assertions, bad logic, and so forth, there is still time for those professing atheists to humble themselves, repent, and seek forgiveness from Jesus Christ. He is the Creator and Redeemer they deny.

May 11, 2015

Brilliant Atheists, Agnostics Saving the World

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 to their personal, uninformed biases), hasty generalizations (finding a religious person that is crazy as a loon or a Mohammedan murder, and using that to demonize "religion" as a whole), vilifying creationists in forums and Weblog comments, and so on.

Watch for how so many act like they're heroes, saving the world from Christians and creationists. Then they have a festival of self-congratulations with others who are stupidified by hate.

In an article that dealt with a question from an "agnostic" at Creation Ministries International, someone said, "Your logic is great and this supreme creator logic indeed fits the bill on how universe was created. However, you are failing to see one point". Really? Somehow, you are the only one to point this out to a ministry that has provided thousands of articles on creation science and apologetics? Not hardly! In a subsequent letter, the "agnostic" showed his true colors. See "Answering agnostic arguments" for both questions and responses.

In my last article, I was attacked by Ashley Haworth-Roberts after I repeatedly showed his bigotry and incompetence in using logic. Replying further bad reasoning, he used abusive ad hominems, the appeal to motive fallacy, cherry-picking, and more. He furiously said, "Go to hell liar Sorensen." Later, he posted a link to his Forum of Futility and added, "Go to hell liar Sorensen. The link showed that you are LYING. And you will censor this because you are a LYING s**t." (Does his atheistic "morality" require him to curse with asterisks? Weird.) He complained that I refused to post a forum link that he furnished, but I had linked to that forum twice in that article alone (I've done so in other posts as well), and even suggested that people to search them, as documented in this video. Apparently, people aren't clever enough to check things out for themselves, so he has to lead them by the nose.

Militant atheists and agnostics act like they're doing the world a favor by attacking Christianity and creation science. They promote their version of "reason", which is thinly-disguised bigotry. These people get angry when we refute their bad logic.

The hypocritical Freedom From Religion Foundation is attacking Christianity at every turn. They put up billboards mocking Christianity, protest giving away Bibles in public schools, and many other affronts to Christian life and practice. Interesting, when schools have events where Islam is promoted, you won't hear nary a peep from them. Liberal "Christians" join forces with Americans United for Separation of Church and State to protest the "Ark Encounter" of Answers in Genesis. News flash, old son, there is no "Constitutional separation of church and state". Don't believe me? Read the First Amendment yourself. There are many other examples of atheistic bigotry that we read about in the news. Then they wonder why people don't like them.

When creationists present scientific and biblical arguments for creation and refuting evolution, evolutionists come along and demand "equal time". They claim that people cannot make intelligent decisions unless they get both sides of the story. I've got some bad news for you, Sunshine, we are "equal time". Evolutionists and atheistic naturalists dominate the discussions, and our sides is not given accurate representation. We don't have to give you a platform on our sites, Pages, groups, or whatever. 

These people appear to think that everyone else are mindless sheep, and secularists need to save us from ourselves. What they don't realize is that we are promoting critical thinking and logic, and many people do think for themselves. Atheism and evolutionism do not tolerate scrutiny. Although these sidewinders want to appear that they are fighting for fairness and justice, it is thinly-disguised bigotry and attempting to further persecute Christians and creationists. 

To quote Bill "I'm Not A Scientist But I Play One On Television" Nye, "I find this troubling".

May 7, 2015

National Day of Unreason

"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.

For the National Day of Prayer, atheists and "Humanists" want a "National Day of Reason". However, they show precious little ability to show reason, or tolerance.

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 embrace "reason" are so unskilled at using it, and are driven by emotion instead of logic; they hate it when we out-reason them. You can listen to Matt's commentary at the beginning of these radio shows (free MP3 downloads), April 29 and April 30. EDIT 1: May 4 has some comments from the 15:15 mark through 24:45.

Speaking of libel, I had been advised to point out and refute blatant defamation by a furious bundle of incoherent apostate hatred, stalker troll tinhorn Ashley Haworth-Roberts. In other posts and articles, I have shown how "Haywire" is incoherent and illogical. Since a Christian Weblog was allowing misotheists to be recalcitrant and turn the thing into their own litterbox, personal attacks were left standing. I had to deal with something, and took screenshots of these things in case they are deleted from the Weblog in question (it had a good article), which would be smart because they are supporting libel and defamation by letting them stand. I added color to his remarks that does not appear in the originals.
ashleyhr said... I see that the fraud and coward Sorensen is falsely libelling me a 'bully' ('misotheist bully') behind my back on one of his blogs that he probably hoped I would not read: He loses the argument and exposes his anti-science bias and intellectual bankruptcy whenever we directly interact - so runs away, sulks, and then libels me on his blog where NO comments are permitted. May 4, 2015 at 1:27 PM (Comment now removed)
Below is my response to him (the first part is dealing with "Thomas Jefferson", a sidewinder who acted in a typical libelous atheopathic manner, and I did not bother to respond to his later defamation). Here is what I posted on May 5, 2015 (Comment now removedDespite claims that dark matter has been "found" in the universe, there is actually no direct observational evidence. In fact, dark matter is a conjecture based entirely on bad logic and naturalistic assumptions.):
I've thought long and hard about replying.

This is ridiculous. The Admin(s) tell people to act in a civil manner or their comments will be removed. What happens? Atheopaths turn it into a litter box, with no consequences. If you're going to be a party to allowing assertions, you could at least require evidence.

One resorts to logical fallacies, and when I point them out, he gets uppity and decides I'm not worthy of his attention, but cannot answer my challenges to his bad "reasoning".

The stalker attention whore (a bitter apostate who cannot string two logical thoughts together), meanwhile, continues to bring in irrelevant personal attacks, terrible logic, off-topic remarks, outside links, and more.

Since I've been called a liar by this liar, I'm going to address his latest attack. It would be fair to let this comment stand, since his multitudinous nonsense has been left untouched. Looks like he got kicked off that Forum of Futility and Hatred again (there was a complain that they're "bored rigid"), so he's bringing his garbage here.

"I see that the fraud and coward Sorensen"

Defamation. Look up ad hominem.

"is falsely libelling me a 'bully' ('misotheist bully') behind my back on one of his blogs that he probably hoped I would not read:"

No, he's a stalker and reads my material almost every day. This is pretty much an appeal to motive fallacy, but he has no basis for his irrational claim that I "probably hoped" he would not read my Weblog. It is also further defamation, since there is no evidence provided that whatever remarks was made was about him. Everything is not about him, in case he did not know.

"He loses the argument"

Not true.

"and exposes his anti-science bias"

This is another defamatory lie, and a manipulation using conflation. He frequently pulls this stunt, and I have made it clear that I am in no wise anti-science (an amazingly vapid claim conflating "evolution" with "science", a sneaky bait 'n' switch from fundamentalist evolutionists).

"and intellectual bankruptcy"

Another ad hominem. How do I fallacy thee? Let me count the ways. But mostly personal attacks. I have repeatedly documented his failings in reasoning and morality.

"whenever we directly interact - so runs away, sulks, and then libels me on his blog where NO comments are permitted."

He does not even know what libel means. Whenever I show his failings, it's "Libel!" For that matter, biblical creationists are "liars", as you have seen here. Sweeping generalizations, and an apparent inability to understand the difference between expressing contrary interpretations of evidence and a demonstrated willingness to deceive.

As for the last lie, "on his blog where NO comments are permitted", first, he needs to demonstrate libel (I have shown repeatedly how he libels me, and he brags about his libels spamming.) No comments allowed? One time, he accused me of switching off the comments on Piltdown Superman because of him. Ego much? The truth is, that weblog never allowed comments for various reasons.

The one the liar was crying about, however, does allow comments. So does Stormbringer's Thunder, my original Weblog (see here).

Thanks for letting me set the record straight on a few things. If you want more documentation, go to Piltdown Superman and do a search for "haywire".

Unfortunately, since the inmates run the asylum here, I can no longer in good conscience promote this Weblog. I'm done here.
Harsh? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely, both legally and to show that Christians do not have to be Wimps for Jesus (look for Challenge-riposte paradigm here). I've dealt with harassment from this stalker for a long time. I won't show you the things he says about God, but it seems he can't make up his mind whether or not he's an atheist or agnostic.

So, what did I gain by proving that he is illogical and a liar?

ashleyhr said...

The fraud Sorensen is asking yet again for blatant censorship. 

The man is an evil hypocrite (or mentally challenged).

Sorensen - YOU are the liar. I have shown this many many times. Even in these threads - which you demand be censored

I am not and you CANNOT prove that I am.

His latest cowardly attack against me was not posted on his daily blog but an obscure one that few people know about. The link in question WAS about me Liar Bob.

If I commented at your propaganda page that I linked to you would INSTANTLY delete the comment. You are an extremist who wants anti-creationists silenced from the web. So you can pretend that you 'won' an argument. 

The rest of your reply is just pseudo-intellectual waffle. 

Are you still saying 'Lucy' will be 'shelved'? In your dreams. 

The Lake of Fire beckons Liar Bob.

Jason - I have more respect for you than for this arrogant dishonest bigot for Jesus who is utterly unteachable.
May 5, 2015 at 8:12 PM (Comment now removed)
Yep, further libel (this is supposed to be the comment link, but it's not working for me). (Professing atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists cannot account for morality). Not worth saddling up to deal with, he knows he's just blowing smoke. I believe he is not only insane, but is a demoniac. EDIT 2: I uploaded some screenshots documenting his misrepresentation, libel, disunderstanding of simple logic, hatred, and more, here. I really think he can't learn logic. Also, I said it looked like he had been kicked off that forum. Nope. Still playing the victim and continuing to libel. Here he is again, and most of Hitler's text are quotes from Haywire, and you can search here for the comments you'll see:

The example at the top with Matt Slick's dealings with a "Humanist", and my libelous harassment from a stalker (which is criminal activity, by the way, so he's in trouble for that as well as defamation) are typical examples of how "tolerant" and "rational" many atheists can be. 

These atheo-fascists are angry and bitter, and Their Father Down Below knows that time is running out, so he's pulling their strings even more. Also, they are upset because Christians are better equipped to use logic than they are, and the scientific evidence supports special Creation, refuting evolution. They need to repent while there's still time, else they're lost forever. Secularists will not have the final victory, that belongs to God.

May 5, 2014

Atheism's Faulty Moral Compass and Consequences

— 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.

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.
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 incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of human experience and intelligibility. Many seem to realize this, hiding behind ideology and attacking people when the facts are against them. It's easy to call a creation scientist a liar when you are incapable of reason, isn't it?

Edit, added this screenshot:
The straw man attack is obvious, but the writer insists that he is right, then changes the subject and attacks, compounding the fallacies.

Persecution of Christians is increasing worldwide, and Christians in the West should be ready for it as well. We can see this from the aforementioned Internet attacks on Christians, as well as the constant whining and legislative efforts and protests from hypocritical atheist groups who claim to believe in "freedom" — which is for anti-Christian activities, homosexuality, polygamy and other deviant acts that atheism attracts.

Some of us wonder when blind hatred of some of these atheists, agnostics and evolutionists will result in violence. Oh, wait. It has:
"Come on, Cowboy Bob! That doesn't mean all atheists, agnostics and evolutionists will get violent!"

Nobody is saying that they will all become killers or do depraved activities. Many are moral according to society's standards. There are two important points to keep in mind. First, their moral standard is arbitrary and inconsistent. Second, they are simply being consistent with their worldview. People are given only the cherry-picked data supporting evolution, not told about the deceptions and bad science, not taught how to think critically but instead are brainwashed, "survival of the fittest", no creator, no judgment, no ultimate moral standards — just acting like the animals that they are told they came from. Ideas have consequences, and if you take the Bible away, these things should not be a surprise.

There was almost another atheist evolutionist killing spree.
A young man who idolized the Columbine killers was preparing to kill dozens or hundreds of people at a 
[Waseca] Minnesota high school. Multiple news sources (The Examiner, Daily News, The Blaze, and more) are mentioning that 17-year-old John LaDue, who was preparing a deadly mass attack on his family and school, was a passionate admirer of Harris and Klebold – the killers who launched the modern era of senseless mass killings in 1999 on the school grounds at Columbine High School in Colorado. Photos from that attack showed Harris with a T-shirt during the rampage labeled, “Natural Selection” in large letters. His writings showed that he believed the planned mass shooting would “boost natural selection by a few notches.”
Read the rest of the report and commentary at "Stopped in Time: Another Atheist Killing Spree".

Addendum: Screen shot of an utterly amazing comment:

I'm not the one killing and planning to kill people because I have no consistent moral standard. And I know how to, ya know, make sentences. Like, duh, fer sher, ya know? 

April 30, 2014

Questioning the Dubious Duties of Darwin Drones

— 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."
 "...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 Fanboi 
"...The fact you refuse to learn evolution does NOT give you the right to spread disinformation; without that disinformation being criticized. Plainly put, this article is a crock of s**t."
— from a comment left at The Question Evolution Project

EDIT: Addendum at the bottom, people ironically proving me right.

It is puzzling how evolutionists, whether they are atheist, agnostic, theistic, old earth Scripture-compromising or something else seem to feel compelled to silence the opposition. Bill Nye, evolution's poster boy, has made ridiculous statements about how evolution is essential to understanding "science", indicating that he does not understand the nature of science himself. Richard Dawkins tells his followers to ridicule Christians (so much for "tolerance" — and atheists wonder why they are disliked by so many people). Various atheist celebrities make good money at writing books ridiculing "religion" and engaging in debates.

The rank-and-file drones patrol (emphasis on "troll") the interweb on a mission to find and attack Christian content. They seek it on social media, Weblogs, merchandising sites and more, then attack us. Especially biblical creationist content. They seem to be compelled to make a variety of comments that are inane, obscene, antagonistic, laughable or any combination thereof.

PD/US Military (modified)

Why? What do they hope to accomplish?

As you can see, some are consumed with blind hate. People who run other Pages on Facebook with Christian material will comment to me that they didn't really believe how depraved these atheopaths can be until they saw it themselves. I can understand that, since my reporting (as well as linking to comments of hateful people) does not have the impact for someone who does not experiencing it for himself or herself.

So, we question why.

I do know one answer: It's a spiritual thing. They deny the existence of God and suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1.18-22). People are enemies of God (Rom. 5.15, Phil. 3.18) before they are adopted as God's children through the blood of Jesus Christ (John 1.12, Gal. 4.5-6). They are doing the will of their father down below (John 8.44), and though they think they are "freethinkers" using "reason", they are actually slaves to sin and cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2.14, John 8.34, 1 Cor. 3.19-20). Sin affects the mind (Rom. 1.22.23). They hate God, the Word, humility for salvation — and us. Part of their hatred of God's people is based on the fact that we have been redeemed and represent God in the world. We stink to them (2 Cor. 2.15-16).

But another aspect of the "why" question defies reason: Why do they feel the need to protect science?

Creation science is "anti-science rhetoric" that harms the entire species according to this troll.

Whether the wandering Internet trolls or the high-profile evolutionists, they act like they're on a mission. From whom? Science itself does not need protection! What is worse, they are using bad reasoning to justify their activities, equivocating "science" with "evolution". But evolution is not science, it is speculation about the past using scientific processes to interpret things that are observed in the present. A great deal of evolutionary science is not scientific at all. Rather, it is metaphysics (especially when dealing with cosmogony). Speculations about evolution are frequently presented as scientific truth.

Many of Darwin's Drones seem to think you are stupid. Instead of letting you evaluate the evidence, you must be protected from creation science so you're not confused with facts that they do not want you to learn. They'll save you!

A tremendous irony is that many claim some kind of moral motive. We are "liars" because we disagree with evolutionary presuppositions and show their errors (which makes them furious). When we present our point of view and the facts that anti-creationist do not want you to know, they attack. Biblical creationists have the Bible as our ultimate standard of morality. They do not have an ultimate, consistent standard of morality. To say that we're evil, they are actually appealing to a higher standard — they're appealing to God and, therefore, to the biblical worldview! The meaning in their lives is based on a fundamentally flawed worldview that is irrational, incoherent and inconsistent.

Further, they feel they must eliminate biblical creation science. This is the opposite of the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Instead, science thrives on challenges; if a hypothesis or theory is found to be faulty, it is modified or even discarded. But not evolution. That stays no matter what. Dawkins said in The Blind Watchmaker that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". There is a strong measure of humanistic arrogance in clinging to evolution, but it is also the spiritual problem that man is at war with God and does not wish to humble himself before the Creator.

My conclusion, then is that their fighting to promote evolution and suppress alternative viewpoints has a spiritual base. Man hates God and wants to proudly cling to "wisdom" and false "science" to justify rejection of God. No wonder they hate those of us who have a personal relationship with Jesus, the Creator who became a man, died for our sins, bodily rose from the dead and offers salvation. But it comes on his terms, not ours. We must humble ourselves and receive his gift (Ephesians 2.8-9).

Darwin's Cheerleaders can actually have purpose and meaning in their lives through Christ. They can build up instead of destroy.

ADDENDUM: People were so blinded by hate, they left comments that inadvertently proved me right.
Now why do you suppose this post, which has little to no value whatsoever, shows up as "what's hot and recommended"? I'll tell you why--it's because of all the creationist drones sharing and plussing it in a concerted, preplanned effort.  If this isn't a case of a pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. But I can't say that I'm even the least bit surprised. It's a common tactic of the religious to claim the exact opposite, and to project their worst traits onto their opponents.
— Left at Google Plus. Sounds paranoid, frankly.
 Lying never works in the long run - even if you're doing it for God.
— Left at Google Plus, very helpful, makes me a better person.

It's hardly a matter of "blind hate." I'd describe it more as an informed disgust. Most atheists who bash the bible and creationism know more about the bible than many Christians do. We know all about its promotion of rape, slavery, and mass murder and find its barbaric teachings and factual inaccuracies disgusting not only on a personal level, but we feel it has held back scientific progress for centuries. The bible is a relic whose teachings should be recognized only from the standpoint of mythologies...
— Left at Google Plus, incomplete because I copied it from my e-mail notification. You get the point, though, full of prejudicial conjecture and hatred, then claiming to be smarter than all the Christians.

These comments have been deleted from the Google Plus post. Why? Because I'm not obligated to give non-thinking haters a platform for their egos and vitriol, nor do I want to waste time in a fruitless "discussion" with minds like these.

September 4, 2012

Darwin's Rejection of God

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 than Paley’s “Natural Theology”. I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’

Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence. He labelled himself an agnostic, and gave us his ‘Religious Belief’ in his Autobiography, written in 1876 when he was 67.
Through time, chance and random processes, you can read the rest of the article, including Darwin's excuses and rejections. Or you can use the intelligent choice and click here to read, "Darwin's Arguments Against God".

July 23, 2011

Voulez-vous Définir "l'athéisme", S'il Vous Plait

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 memo has not reached all atheists, because there is still some confusion. In addition to people calling talk shows and defining themselves as "agnostic atheists" (a term that has baffled other atheists with whom I have corresponded, as well as myself), and used by some apologists. Well, some atheists seem confused:
"Disbelief in God", like the standard definition says. Got it, Marc.

"Lack of belief". Got it, Marc.

Actually, I think that atheists have taken too much philosophical shaming at the hands of apologist-philosophers, so they changed the definition.

At any rate, since some people have hair triggers, I often prefer to have people tell me what they mean by "atheist" if they are going to engage in dialogue on the subject. It's helpful if they don't want to play semantic games.

October 23, 2010

Where Does It Stop?

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?
For various reasons, I believe that Zach is much younger than me; I am old enough to be his — professor. Now I will attempt to act like one.

First, a bit of advice to him, and anyone else that may wish to heed it:
  • Realize that you have a great deal to learn about Life, the Universe and Everything; the more we learn, the more we realize that there is still more to learn. Other people can know and understand things that we do not know. This bit of wisdom should help us become more patient and willing to listen.
  • Define your terms. (Later on, you'll read how I qualify my "belief in the supernatural".) You can fight over misunderstandings as well as agree on things that you did not know about; I argued with a guy for two days and then found out that we were in agreement all along, the problem was just in how we understood certain words! Embarrassing, and I've remembered that for incident for (mumbles) years.
  • Frame your questions without your bias showing. While we all have our biases, we do not need to act like we are tolerating the ravings of a madman when we ask our questions. You may be surprised that said madman actually knows more than you thought. If you begin like a flamethrower, do not cry because you get flamed right back.
  • When discussing things, pride is your enemy. You may not only have to eat your words, but possibly a bad attitude (or slink off into the darkness like some people I have encountered). Just be ready to listen. You can develop patience and diplomacy if nothing else.
  • Remember that people are different, and not everyone knows the same things that you know. Besides, you may find yourself actually liking someone despite your philosophical differences. It's happened to me, and it can be a bit unnerving sometimes.
  • Don't quibble about small stuff. I've seen people that were all too happy to find some excuse to vilify someone and missed the point that was being made because they majored on minors, slip of the tongue, misspeaking, typo pouncing &c.
That's enough, I want to get to what he actually said before the lot of you doze off.

Zach has admitted to having a materialistic bias. That is excellent to know and admit to having a bias, because so many people think that they are totally neutral and make their decisions based strictly on the facts. The problem with a bias (or presupposition) is that you have to be careful that you do not preclude other possibilities, especially with a naturalistic bias. If you become adamant that there is no other explanation outside of what can be experienced or measured, you are being illogical. Why? Because you are assuming a kind of God-like role of knowledge, and you are declaring an absolute negative.

I like to point out to people that just because something is outside your realm of knowledge, experience or the senses does not mean that something does not exist. For example, I have never been to China, but I know it is there. I have seen pictures, heard the testimony of Tibetans who escaped from China into the United States, read history reports and so on. It's a matter of faith. Many atheists rail against the concept, but yes, they do have faith: Faith in the philosophies of science, faith in evolution, faith in the Big Bang, faith in themselves.

When it comes to the supernatural, what then? If a naturalistic approach is an unmovable law for someone, then they have to dismiss evidence that does not fit into their preconceptions. By doing so, they are rejecting possible explanations out of hand. When people are locked into their preconceptions, they often get very illogical: "Creationists are not scientists because they believe in Creation" (circular reasoning), or, "Creationists are religious fanatics that are not scientists because Dawkins said so" (erroneous appeal to authority). Those statements are both wrong because Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are actual scientists who have degrees from actual accredited universities. Just because they believe in the "wrong things" according to this bias does not negate their credentials.

Zach's approach of going to the natural explanation is, in my view, the proper way to go. Years ago, I learned something about UFOs: Look for the rational, normal explanation first before going after the supernatural; try to debunk an encounter. Where did I learn that? From believers in UFOs! Whether it's God, UFOs, ghosts or what have you (see "Ghost Hunters" on this), if you run screaming into the street with "proof", you look like a fool when the claim is soundly debunked. (Note that I said "soundly debunked". That is a far cry from being unconvinced by the evidence, or disbelieving it because it does not fit into preconceptions.) Then you can build up a reputation for being cautious and thorough instead of being gullible.

I believe this is where your question about supernatural explanations, "once you let one in, where do you stop?" applies. If people are willing to examine the evidence and not blame or credit the supernatural at the drop of a hat, "false positives" can be avoided. As you well know, I believe in the supernatural. But let's be careful, shall we? That word covers a great deal of ground, so it has to be limited. Right now, I am limiting my use of that word to people and events in the Bible.

You have seen how I reject evolution. I have seen strong biases proclaiming its truth but denying its errors. My conclusions led me to reject evolution on scientific grounds. Funny, too, because I used to be a "theistic evolutionist", believing that God used evolution to create the world.

I think I'm hesitant to come out and say that I have to accept belief in God as an explanation.

"Why do you feel that way, Cowboy Bob?"

Because I have reached my conclusions many years ago, and they are constantly reinforced. For those reasons, it is difficult for me to lay out my reasons for going to the supernatural as an explanation and having you think that I am "jumping" over there. I suppose I want to say that belief in God (or, as many atheist accuse us of believing, "Goddidit") was not without serious thought.

Now I have to get more personal and tell you my own story. I'll cut out as much superfluous matter as I can, this thing is long enough already.

I was raised in a Christian home. My father was a United Methodist pastor, and that is one of the most liberal denominations that you can find. When I went to a Christian high school, my beliefs were challenged, because they were very conservative. Someone would make a statement of belief, and I would want to know, "Where did you get that?" I have long been skeptical, and needed "chapter and verse" to back things up, even before I received serious Bible teachings.

Great, so I'm getting answers for where my beliefs can be found. But next, I needed to know why I believe. What's so special about the Bible? One book that I recommend to anyone that inquires is Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell (I highly recommend that link). You don't exactly read it, you wade through it because it is very scholarly. McDowell wanted to shut Christians up once and for all, so he set out to disprove the Bible and tear it apart. He became a Christian and one of the leading apologists. This book, and others, helped me. (You are fortunate, scores of apologetics links are available right here. I had to read books back in the olden days.) Some things I've learned, briefly:
  • Internal consistency. Get ten of your friends together and ask them about theological, philosophical and other controversial subjects, and see how much agreement you get. Compare that to the Bible, which was composed over thousands of years through different cultures, languages, occupations, rulers and so on, yet with uniformity. Rewrite: The Old Testament was written from about 1400 BC through 400 BC, and the New Testament was written from about 50 through 90 AD.
  • Textual variations. You would think that texts that were, say, five hundred years older than other texts would be vastly different. Instead, there are startlingly few variations, comprised mostly of slight wording and writing differences, but nothing of substance.
  • Abundance of translations. There are far more copies of all or parts of the New Testament than any other ancient book. If you doubt the Bible, you should also doubt the reliability of the writings of, say, Julius Caesar, since there are about one tenth of the copies of his works in comparison.
  • The ring of truth. C.S. Lewis referred to the "ring of truth", because the Bible presents people with all of their flaws and failures. Tell me, if you were going to create a religion, would you have disciples denying their Lord, cowering in fear, disbelieving in his resurrection? Me, neither.
  • Archaeology verifies it. Sure, people claimed to disprove parts of it. Guess what? The disproofs were disproved. Archaeological and historian heavyweights affirm the validity of the Bible.
Whew, this is long. Hope you click the links and get more information when you have time.

Another important reason for me to accept the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the testimony of people who have had their lives radically changed. I was a fool and put God on the back burner for fifteen years, only recently coming back to my faith. I had sinned and broken God's moral law. How many times have I taken his name in vain (Exodus 20.7), lied (Exodus 20.16), stolen (even though it was small stuff, Exodus 20.15), lusted (committing adultery in my heart, Matt. 5.28), tried to reshape God to suit me (Exodus 20.3), I cannot say. But God knows that I mangled all of the commandments. And I know that Jesus died a horrible death on a cross to take my punishment (1 John 4.10). He arose from the dead (1 Cor. 15.3-8). Now I belong to him (Galatians 2.20).

God does not make sense because he is God. How can the creation understand the Creator? He loves us, and we have broken his laws. How can we understand that? Jesus explained him, the Bible explains him. If we humble ourselves and stop trying to make God act in a manner that is pleasing to us (which includes the way he is supposed to manifest himself), he will come into our lives, save us from the punishment of our sins and give us new life (2 Cor. 5.17). He gave me something to live for, not to fight against.

Well, I hope your answer was in there. If not, ask further questions. I won't make a grand essay of it next time. Thanks for writing.

October 19, 2010

More Atheist Troublemaking

Buona sera. On the surface, it really baffles me that ("new") atheists are making total war with Christians and Theists. Why? What is the real reason (not just some nonsensical excuse you've conjured up so you can pretend that you have a valid cause)? Why put anti-Christian signs on buses, vandalize crosses at public war memorials, stashing 666 copies of  failed DVD "The God who Wasn't There" in churches for Easter, protest the Ten Commandments in public — and protest the Sunday morning meeting of Answers in Genesis? Anyone watching from the outside will probably say, "What a bunch of jerks. If they're smarter than all the Christians, then why not just go on about their business, confident in their superiority?"

Addendum: The follow-up to the protest is here.

I have asked several times, without response, why they attack and troll Christians, but not easier targets like Mormons, UFO enthusiasts, New Agers, witches, Satanists, Muslims — well, the last two may very well track them down and hurt them, so I'll give them a pass there. But otherwise, they prefer to attack Christians.

Anyone who knows the Bible understands why atheists (and other anti-Christians) attack us:
"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
(John 8:43-44 NAS)

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
(2 Cor. 4:3-4 NAS)

For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life.
(2 Cor. 2:15-16 NAS) Get that? We stink to them.
Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
(2 Tim 3:12-13 NAS)
Maybe, deep inside their Satan-controlled spirits, they are rebelling against their final destination:
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
(Rev. 20:15 NAS)
It grates on me when atheists cry about having it rough. But there has never been widespread persecution of atheists, but boy, have atheists caused widespread persecution and murders of millions of of Jews and Christians. But note that it doesn't have to end with the lake of fire. If you're reading this, you still have a chance to repent of your sins and make the resurrected Jesus Christ the lord of your life. While there's still time. You may not have tomorrow, whether through sudden death, or the return of Jesus. Trust me, you do not want to be left behind!

And a word to "religious" people: You're not going to make it. Religious rituals, intellectual assent, your "opinion" or "sincerity" — it's all worthless. You had better be certain of your salvation (2 Cor. 13.5). There will be quite a few religious people that are in for a rude surprise (Matt. 7.21-23). You, an atheist, someone that is complacent, an agnostic, a Muslim, a Satanist or anyone else can repent of (that is, turn from) your sins and make the risen Christ the lord of your life. Again, while there's still time.

I've never been more serious.

Subscribe in a reader