Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts

September 10, 2019

Atheists and Misrepresentation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Some time ago, I wrote an article about the proper use of debates, which drew heavily on what I had learned from Dr. James R. White. At this writing, he has done 169 formal debates. One thing he emphasizes is that to do this, both sides have to know what the other represents so they can discuss things properly.

Atheists and evolutionists frequently misrepresent Christians and creationists. Dr. James R. White points out some of these things. Christians need to be on guard against both receiving and giving them.
Screenshot from The Dividing Line, September 3, 2019 (linked below)
There is a section of The Dividing Line that I would like you to see. Dr. White is telling how he represents the other side correctly (at the moment, he was talking to a Mohammedan). That is an excellent set-up for the next segment where he is (if I understood this correctly) going to debate an atheist. This atheist wrote a post where he makes fifteen assertions that parts of the Bible had material that were inserted deceptively.

What he is doing (and what the Mohammedan was doing earlier) is focusing on textual variances. Christian scholars know about these things, and they are usually in footnotes of Bibles (such as, "...older manuscripts omit..." or similar). Claiming sneakiness from ancient Christians without evidence is not only illogical, it also makes him the liar. (I know of tinhorns who do the same thing: assert that someone is deceptive without offering evidence, then claiming that they "proved" someone is lying by irrationally invoking the fallacy of repeated assertion.) The atheist that White is discussing would do well to read "100 Alleged Bible Contradictions Answered" at the Domain for Truth.

Seeing this sort of thing helps Christians and especially creationists be on guard against harassment and misrepresentation by atheists and evolutionists. Also, we have to be mindful of our own approaches, avoiding "Gotcha!" tricks and so forth. We are not in this to glorify ourselves through our rhetorical skills, but to spread the truth and to glorify God.

The part I would like you to watch begins at the 25 minutes 49 seconds mark. I'm only asking a few minutes from you, from the Mohammedan and into the discussion about the atheist. You may want to watch Dr. White address each of the fifteen items, but I am not asking for that much.

ADDENDUM: Sometimes atheists pretend to be Christians, but you can tell from their misuse of the Bible and their attitudes that they are unbelievers in sheep's clothing. Ladies and gentlemen, for your edification and amusement, let me present Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker (the crowd goes wild). Hailing from London in the UK, he stalks and harasses people, especially intelligent people, who do not agree with his narrow, convoluted, bigoted views. Although he hates the God of the Bible and rejects the authority of Scripture, and he does not understand either, he uses them in his idolatrous pursuit of internet validity. He also has a habit of proving his critics right. Let's have a big round of applause for Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker:

April 21, 2019

The Busy but Empty Tomb of Jesus

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

People who reject the truth of the Bible resort to various rescuing devices such as saying Scripture has errors, does not mean what it says so we need help from atheistic interpretations of science, and outright ridicule. How many of these owlhoots have seriously read it?

The best-attested fact of ancient history is the empty tomb of Jesus. That first Easter morning was very busy at the empty tomb.
Credit: Pixabay / Jeff Jacobs
Christians frequently hear atheists refer to the Bible as "fairy tales". (One of the most absurd remarks is the claim that the Bible was written by illiterate goat herders. Not only does this reveal bigotry and prejudicial conjecture about the writers of the Bible, but it is self-refuting: how do illiterate people write books?) The fairy tale aspect is easily dismissed by comparing actual fairy tales with the Bible. You will find detailed, accurate history in the Bible and see that it reads quite differently from fairy tales.

In a similar way, myths and legends are usually vague and unbelievable; I wonder if people actually believed the tales of the Sumerian, Greek, Scandinavian, or other gods. Compare the Epic of Gilgamesh with the Genesis Flood account, for instance. Dr. Ben Scripture has a radio show and podcast where he and Scott Kump did a three-part series comparing the creation myths with the Genesis narrative, and you can easily spot the differences.

Now we come to the Easter part of this article, what with it being that time of year and all. Some of these things came to mind when I was listening to a series by Dr. John MacArthur on "The Empty Tomb" (free to download, read, or listen online). All four Gospels record the Resurrection, but have different perspectives. When investigators question witnesses, a strong indication that a story is concocted is if there are too many matching details. The Gospel writers emphasized different aspects of the Resurrection. Luke was a historian, not a witness, but he obviously conducted thorough interviews (Luke 1:1-4).

It has been stated that the Bible has the "ring of truth". That is clearly true, because we see the flaws in the followers of Jesus. He told some blunt truths and people actually turned away (John 6:66 is one example). We know about Peter's denial (Matt. 26:75), the family of Jesus thought he was plumb loco (Mark 3:21), the doubt of Thomas (John 20:24-25), and Judas' betrayal (Mark 14:44), but there are other areas where his followers were less than enthusiastic. If you were going to make up a religion, would you write in doubt and betrayal on the part of followers and other people? Me, neither.

An old effort to deny the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the claim that people went to the wrong tomb.

Let's see... we had Roman guards, the man who originally purchased it and provided it for Jesus' burial (great deal, he got the tomb back later!), the women who went there previously, and all sorts of things happening. This wrong tomb idea may have worked if there were only a few people in the early dawn, but the traffic continued. Even the Romans testified that the tomb was empty. Nobody disagreed that it was empty. Instead, they wanted to explain it away.

 Excerpted from Dr. John MacArthur's sermon, "Witnessing Women and Doubting Disciples"

Note that another ring of truth aspect is that the women were not expecting his Resurrection (John 20:2). Nobody was, even though he had told them repeatedly (Luke 18:34). God told the women through angels that Jesus had risen (Matt. 28:5-6). They were unlikely messengers, because women were not exactly held in high regard in that society.

God's Word has many authenticating factors. Jesus was crucified for our sins (Phil. 2:8, 1 Peter 2:24, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23). He rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:3-8), and this is considered the best attested fact of ancient history. We can become children of the living God (John 1:12-13) by repenting and putting our faith in Christ alone (Luke 24:46-47). As Christians, we presuppose that the Bible is true, and it has many authenticating factors.

The tomb was empty. 

Unbelievers have to decide what they will do with Jesus, but everyone will stand before him — whether they like it or not (Phil. 2:9-11, Rev. 7:9-12, Rev. 20:11-15). You're reading this, so you still have time to repent and believe the good news, pilgrim.

April 1, 2019

Atheist "Gotcha" Question: Does God Kill People?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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

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

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

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

May 30, 2018

Science as a Manipulative Technique

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

First, a side note before I commence do be writing the actual article. It was eleven years ago today that I started this, my first weblog. Then, as now, it is a sort of general purpose thing. But back then, it had a great deal of political material and things that were dreadful (many of which have been removed). Although I still do some political things, I also post material on theology, refuting atheism, and some odds and ends. My main weblogs are Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman and Biblical Creation and Evangelism. Also, I've been filling in for the owner of Radaractive. Those three are the weblogs that are updated the most often. Quite a contrast from when this one started.

Atheistic interpretations of science are made into the religion of Scientism.
Credit: CSIRO / David McClenaghan (CC BY 3.0)
As I have written in several places, some folks (especially atheists) believe that "science" is something special, even deserving of special consideration and privileges. They make science into an infallible entity — a demigod — that seeks the truth. In this case, the scientists are erroneously viewed as dispassionate and honest about data. They are just as human as you and I, old son, and they operate from their own presuppositions, just like biblical creationists. 

The adoration of scientists and science itself is a de facto religion called Scientism (see "Scientism, a Religion of Atheism" and "Scientism, Heal Thyself" for more). Many atheistic adherents of Scientism try to horswoggle us by pretending to be smarter than they are (which is only smart enough to be incredibly dishonest), insisting that the Genesis Flood is fiction, biblical creationists are liars or just plain stupid, putting words in our mouths, railing against side issues ("false thesis" fallacy), and so on. They seek to silence us through ridicule and defamation since they cannot rationally deal with the topics at hand. All this because they do not really know the nature of science, and that it is a tool, not a lifestyle, nor is it to be used to intimidate, bully, and manipulate people who reject atheism and Darwinism.

We are sometimes told that creationists are wrong because you cannot question science. That'll be the day! Some of us think for ourselves instead of bowing down to the alter of atheistic interpretations of science. Critical thinking is lacking in the secular science industry and in the minds of atheopaths. It can be your friend. Get your ownselves introduced sometime. The ultimate source of truth and logic is Jesus Christ.

April 1, 2018

No Reason to Doubt the Resurrection of Jesus

The bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the lynchpin of Christianity, because without it, our faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:14, 19). The Creator of the universe (John 1:1, Col. 1:16) took on human form (he pitched his tent among us, John 1:14) and died on a cross for our sins (Phil. 2:6-11). Jesus defeated death by rising from the grave (Hebrews 2:14, Romans 1:4). Indeed, the entire Bible lays out God's plan of redemption of mankind from sin.

Scoffers try to find excuses to disbelieve the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The Bible is reliable, and the evidence is clear.
Credit: Pixabay /acperez1
Some folks do not want to accept the historical narrative of the Bible. This is clearly from bias, not logic. Compare the Bible with legends and the sacred books of other religions, and there is a marked contrast: details. Other accounts are vague while the Bible gives specifics, many of which have been corroborated through archaeology and history. Mockers have attempted to come up with ways of dismissing the Resurrection, but those fail under scrutiny. The New Testament documents are abundant, the oldest of which are dated within a few decades of the actual events. Other ancient texts are far fewer in number, with more significant time gaps.

The Gospels are prima facie historical accounts and completely reliable. We are given the record of eyewitnesses (Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, and entrusted women to spread the news of the Resurrection, which was unthinkable in that culture). Also, we have the validity of Scripture, so there is no legitimate reason to doubt the Resurrection of Jesus.
Unlike many world religions, Christianity’s origins are not shrouded in an unwitnessed, mythical past. The Christian faith centers on the person and work of Jesus Christ. His life and miracles were witnessed by thousands, and His sacrificial death on the Cross was also a public spectacle. Three days later, God raised His Son from the dead, and over the next forty days, Jesus appeared to hundreds of individuals.

Overstating the importance of the Resurrection is impossible. It conclusively demonstrated Christ’s power over the grave, secured our hope of eternal life, and proved that He truly was and is the Son of God. Because He rose, Christ also proved that every non-Christian belief system is false, and that He will eventually return to judge this world (Acts 17:30–31).

So it’s no surprise that people have tried to deny the historic reality of the Resurrection. The attacks began the day of the miracle (Matthew 28:11–15) and have continued until the present day, from the Jesus Seminar to the recent “Jesus myther” fad. The ongoing assaults demonstrate that nobody has found a workable alternative. The biblical and historical evidence is just too overwhelming.
To read the rest or download the MP3 version, click on "Resurrection — No Doubt About It".

January 10, 2018

Archaeology Supports the Bible

People who doubt the authenticity of the Bible, whether unbelievers or liberal "Christians", will occasionally appeal to archaeology in their attempts to reject God's Word and continue riding the owlhoot trail. However, they are showing massive ignorance as well as relying on fallacious reasoning. Although the Christian's faith is based on the Word of God, there is evidence for our beliefs. Maybe I'm unusual, but I actually found the material I rounded up and presented below to be rather exciting.

Archaeology supports the Bible, history, and the Bible's authors
Credit: Pixabay / Heather Truett
Archaeology is a newer science when compared to some of the more established disciplines. The subject matter requires careful excavation of unoccupied areas. This is a huge reason that Jerusalem and other areas are left alone, as not only do people live there, but buildings are erected on much older foundations. 

When some people claim that the Bible is historically inaccurate because certain things have not been discovered by archaeologists, they are committing a passel of fallacies. For one thing, they conveniently overlook the fact that archaeologists have verified many accounts in the Bible, and other historical documents have supported it as well. Also, if something has not been found, that proves nothing and is often times a fallacious argument from silence. Two additional areas of bad reasoning to keep an eye out for include arguing from incomplete or suppressed evidence, personal preference. Gotta watch out for tricky disbelievers, they suppress the truth and try to justify their rebellion against God (Rom. 1:18-23).

Scoffers are also arguing from presuppositions; they are biased against the Bible from the get-go. Add to that some arbitrary assertions, erroneous interpretations of other historical records, and you have people acting like evolutionists — they can't find evidence because they already expect the Bible to be wrong. 

Also, a frequent trick from atheists and liberal "Christians" is to try and put Bible-believers on the defensive. This includes utilization of the genetic fallacy, rejecting material they don't cotton to. They want evidence for the Bible from outside it, showing their ignorance again of what all the Bible entails. Atheists and other unbelievers make assertions with a "prove me wrong" attitude, but we need to call them out on their fallacies and have them back up their claims — and not just with the confirmation bias of, "I found a liberal scholar who agrees with my preconceptions" kind of thing.

Another area of bad thinking I need to mention is prejudicial conjecture. That's when someone has an uninformed, biased opinion and needs to express it. Atheists do this frequently, especially about biblical creationists. 

Now we come to some things that I really hope you'll examine, and mayhaps file away for when you need information on these examples of archaeology supporting the Bible.
Was the Bible written by men who were inspired by God or was it written by men who were telling tall tales, motivational stories, or trying to deceive in order to gain something for themselves? Were the authors of the books of the Bible who they claim to be? Because if they were not then we have a problem, how did men who were either delusional or deceptive write a book that, apart from authorship, contains evidences of divine origins? That is, how did writers who were lying or deceived get the details correct? That is one overall evidence that the Bible writers were authentic.
It is not possible to actually confirm that any particular individual wrote a book of the Bible, apart from what the Bible says and what has been passed down from tradition. The same is true for all ancient manuscripts. There are no signatures to compare, no fingerprints, just copies of what they wrote that have been passed down through the centuries.  What we have now is archeological evidence and old manuscripts.
To finish reading this first article, click on "Who Wrote the Books of the Bible". Then I have some more material below.

The above article focused on the authors of the Bible, and this next one goes into some fascinating detail on locations in the Bible. It's by an archaeologist, Dr. Bryant Wood.
As our Western culture increasingly abandons all semblance of Christianity, more and more people think the Bible is just a bunch of myths. . . . The short answer is encouraging. Archaeologists have found evidence that supports the Bible, but many times the evidence is ignored because of preconceptions about the Bible’s historicity, or their dates or places are wrong for the biblical events. The longer answer is even more exciting. Any supposed contradictions turn out to be human errors, not Bible errors. Consider five of the most common examples.
To read the rest or download the MP3 version, click on "Digging Past the Doubts". Also, I recommend this short article discussing the importance of how the Bible is historically accurate, and how it applies to our theology, "Genesis is both History and Theology".  

July 9, 2017

Incoherent "Reasoning" from Silverman in Debate

James White shows that atheist David Silverman is incoherent

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This 2010 debate between atheist David Silverman and Christian Dr. James White illustrates how things that are considered logical from an atheistic perspective are, in reality, incoherent. Silverman used many fallacies:

  • Argument from outrage (essentially, the New Testament is evil because he doesn't like what it says)
  • Straw man arguments (when he was called on this, he promptly redefined the meaning of a straw man for his own convenience)
  • Appeal to motive plus some ad hominem remarks against Dr. White
  • Equivocation
  • For a debate on the New Testament, he went back to the Old Testament several times. Especially Genesis, which helps illustrate why biblical creationists affirm its truth
  • Several others that I'll leave to the listener to observe
James White clearly showed that David Silverman's arguments for the nature of good and evil are irrational, standing on the biblical worldview when he calls something evil, but Silverman also relies on subjective, personal preference as a basis for morality.

Some of the debate involved matters of theology. I do not get into deeper theological matters with misotheists, as they are not only opposed to such things, but cannot understand them (1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Matt. 12:30). Dr. White discussed some theology from his Reformed perspective. Agree or disagree, Silverman was still unable to refute anything or support his own claims. However, White also managed to make the gospel message clear. Some of his detractors have said he does not do this, especially with Mohammedans, but that is easily debunked when honestly considering the source material. Here is one example (try to ignore the excessive piano music).

As I understand it, closing remarks are not the place to introduce new claims in a formal debate. David Silverman did not quite follow the debate rules in his opening statements and in several places in the course of the event. He made some interesting and unsustainable assertions about Neanderthals and the origin of religion in his conclusion. Being an atheist, he used the naturalistic evolutionary scientific principle of Making Things Up™. That fits, because his naturalistic subjective morality is inconsistent and unlivable. Perhaps that would explain the desperate-sounding "Oooooh! Aaaaah!" sounds while Dr. White was talking, as if those were "Gotcha!" moments. Silverman didn't get a gotcha, except those he inflicted on himself.

I recommend that Christians watch this video. There are two specific things I'd like you to notice. First, theology is vitally important when having a debate or a protracted discussion with an unbeliever. Many Christians try to refute evolution and atheism by posting a captioned picture. (We share many of those at The Question Evolution Project, but the posts contain links and other text because we're hoping to edify and equip Christians.) You do not have to be an expert in every aspect of theology, else there would be almost nobody talking about it. But you do need to have a good working knowledge of Christian essentials, whether debating or not.

The second thing I'd like you to notice is the importance of presuppositional apologetics. Those of us who use it are infuriating to atheists and evolutionists, since we not only believe the Bible, but we show how their worldviews do not work. The biblical worldview, beginning in Genesis, is the only one that can consistently answer the basic questions of human experience. White made it clear that Silverman's worldview is based on his biases and preferences, not on reason or reality. I frustrate Calvinists because I refuse to identify as Calvinist or Arminian, but strongly affirm presupposition apologetics in many of my writings.

I need to add that what is seen is typical among atheists. I've heard Silverman before, and much of this was very similar to other debates. Other atheist debaters (whether anonymous keyboard warriors or others) are very much like what you will hear in this debate. They equivocate on definitions, change the subject, attack the person, misrepresent people and positions, and more. Then they consider people like Silverman to be brilliant. Not hardly! Illogical thinkers applaud each other for affirming their preconceptions.

Here's the hard part: the video is intimidating at first because it is three hours long all told. However, there are some links in the video itself where you can skip the introductory remarks, skip the debate rules, and so on. David Silverman begins, and his opening remarks start at the 13 mini. 50 sec. mark. Also, the audience questions begin at 2 hrs. 34 min. 39 sec., so the debate itself is just over two hours. So, get your chips and soda, get comfortable, and here is the video when you're ready.

March 19, 2016

Cain's Wife, Biblical Incest, and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Since the Bible is not being taught very well in too many churches, one of the questions that stymies some people is, "Where did Cain get his wife in Genesis 4:16:17? After all, we only know about Cain and Abel". It's a fair question. However, atheopaths will often use this in a weird, self-refuting way that ends with, "therefore, evolution". They claim that there is no God and the Bible is false, but they selectively cite passages as if they were true to allow God to exist so they can hate him, such as in this image.

The chronology of some of the early Hebrew writings is less linear than our 21st century minds prefer. In Genesis 5:3-4, it said that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. As to when they had them, we're not told. Ultimately, its indicates that the sons and daughters married each other. After all, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Incest was expected back then.

The question of where Cain got his wife is a fair one, but atheists and evolutionists use misquote, mis-cite, and misrepresent it in a "gotcha" game. Of course, there is an answer, and it's not pleasant for them.

Centuries ago when I was in my early twenties, I saw a woman and thought, "Well, hel-lo! Ain't she a babe!" Then I was told that she was my first cousin that I hadn't seen in several years. So much for that idea! If you study on it, you'll realize that incest is not only unlawful, but morally repugnant today. We can't reasonably impose our views on the ancient people who were commanded to reproduce and marry their own kin, can we? Especially since God did not say that it was forbidden for about 2,500 years after creation (Lev. 18:6-18).

From a biblical perspective, everything was created very good (Gen 1:31). There was no genomic devolution yet. That would begin shortly afterward, when man sinned (Rom. 5:12). For that matter, when God said in Genesis 2:17, "In the day you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die". People have said, "Aha! God's a liar (because it's convenient for him to exist right now so I can hate him), because they didn't die! I win the Gotcha Game!" Do your homework, Hoss. The most accurate translation is, "dying you shall die", which means the process of dying had begun, not only for Adam and Eve, but all humanity.

Our genetic clocks are winding down. By the way, ever hear of mitochondrial Eve? Instead of supporting evolution, the science of genetics is supporting the Bible by indicating that humanity can be traced back to one woman. Remember, the Bible tells us that Eve became the mother of all humanity. These facts about genetics really get evolutionists on the prod!

So, incest was encouraged until it became a genetic issue, and at that time, God was likely to be putting a moral repugnance of incest in the hearts of people. Of course, there are people who rebel against God's moral and written laws, and against God himself. all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), and deserve death (Rom. 6:23), but God made reconciliation and salvation possible through Jesus Christ (John 3:16-17, John 1:12).

For further reading on the incest issue by people who are far better than me, see the links above, plus:

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.

July 17, 2014

Why Can't Atheists Find God?

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

The simple answer to the question of why atheists cannot find God is that they really do not want to find him. However, that raises several other questions and issues.

Many times, atheists claim to have rejected belief in God because of reason (as if theists somehow were automatically irrational because of their beliefs, which is a logical fallacy right there, and many atheists frequently demonstrate a grasp of basic logic). If they had used some of the logic they claim to like, they would be confronted with some problems that they cannot escape. Atheists cannot account for logic itself, and they are unable to answer the question of existence. Although some think that evolution solves some problems and helps them become intellectually fulfilled, evolution is a failure. Materialists have attempted to scientifically locate a place for free will and the soul in the brain, and they try but fail to account for morality through evolution. The truth is that atheism is irrational and incoherent, and does not deal with the big issues of human existence. Only biblical Christianity can do that.

"Prove to me God exists!"


The Bible makes it clear that people have the evidence that they need (Romans 1.18-22). In fact, it seems like common sense to say, "Just look around". But many atheists want scientific evidence for the existence of God. It is a logical fallacy to want material proof for God, who is spirit and outside the limitations of time and space. Everyone knows that God exists, but want to justify their rebellion against God. If you want to really rebel, rebel against your father, the one who controls the establishment (John 8.44, 2 Corinthians 4.4).

"But if God should prove to me that he exists with a miracle!"

Haven't you been paying attention? You already have the evidence you need... Let me show you something else. Atheists have been asked, "If I gave you the kind of proof that you want, would you serve God?", and the answers have often been, "No". Also, what makes you so special? God has explained himself (John 1.14, 2 Peter 1.16-19). You have no business demanding anything from the Creator of the universe, and he doesn't have to jump through hoops to please anyone. He doesn't even have to have anything to do with sinful humanity (Romans 3.23, Romans 6.23), as we are all sinners and deserve Hell (Matthew 25.41, Luke 16.23-24, Matthew 13.42, Revelation 20.13-15). We don't have to go there. God made provision for us through Jesus Christ (John 1.12, John 5.24, 2 Corinthians 5.17, Galatians 3.26, 1 John 3.2, Revelation 21.3-4).

Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to discuss things and give evidence. But I am not going to "prove that God exists" and contradict God's Word.

Just suppose, for the sake of discussion, that God decided that you were going to get a special privilege and see a miracle. Would you believe? There were disciples of Jesus who had seen him after he had risen, yet some still doubted (Matthew 28.17). Miracles are not a guarantee that someone will believe. Belief in God is not a matter of intellect or evidence. For every evidence presented, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device; people keep trying to justify their unbelief. No, it is a matter of the spirit, not proof or evidence. Why do you think atheists and evolutionists hate biblical creationists so much? We speak the truth without compromise.

Although the Bible contains numerous examples of miraculous events leading to faith and repentance in the lives of people, it is clear from biblical history that miracles are not always a reliable cure for a hardened unbelief.

The topic of proving God’s existence has been discussed and analyzed many times. In 1985 a popular debate on this subject was held between Reformed theologian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein. Stein was asked what would “constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?” He answered, “If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.” What if an even greater miracle happened? Would you believe in God if He showed up at your door?
You can read the rest by clicking on "Proving God’s Existence — Would You Believe If He Showed Up at Your Door?"

September 5, 2013

Debates, Stalkers, Bullies and Sore Losers

Too many modern atheists and pretend agnostics are more intent on ridiculing Christians (especially creationists) than in simply going on about their business. It's been rightly observed, though, that if an atheist sees a gang of young men coming toward him, s/he will breathe easier if they're carrying Bibles.

Screen shots are "Fair Use" for educational purposes. Also, Twitter's "Tweets" are public.

To display their intellectual prowess, some want to engage in "debates". I said "debates" because they do not like structured, moderated debates, but prefer a free-for-all where changing the subject, bad logic and abuse are their modus operandi. 

I have noticed that, with the exception of Internet public debate forums, when Christians are doing their own thing, atheists jump in and start raising a fuss. (Sometimes, they even pretend to be Christians in order to infiltrate groups set up specifically for Christians.) When they give the "I'm so much smarter than you st00pid dumb Xtians" nonsense, most will back off from debate challenges, especially about creation and evolution. Perhaps it is because they know that creationists win those debates.

Most just want to express hate. And God forbid (heh!) that someone dares to express an unflattering opinion of an atheist stalker bully.

Sometimes, someone is so desperate to malign someone else, they resort to attacks that turn around to bite them:
When challenged, they play the victim card. Some are even outrageous enough to lie and say that they are being persecuted, but in fact, they are the ones doing the persecuting. (Persecution and discrimination from atheists has been shown on this Weblog many times.) I have seen them remove their comments or threads (including comments that were removed from this Weblog when someone realized what a fool he was making of himself, back when I accepted comments). The few atheists who want to go on about their business and will discuss their views, or not, seem to be dwindling.

Apologist Jason Petersen has had some debates, but does not give in to the "free-for-all" verbal debates where it is one against many on a Skype call. Yeah, sounds fair, huh? He does written debates. When some of these cyber bullies lose the debates, they attack the person and even begin stalking as well as libeling. I know the feeling all too well.

Methinks his "name" is already rubbish, as evidenced by his documented antics.

Jason has some experiences to relate with dishonest bullies. First, "More Examples of How Some Unbelievers Value Ridicule Over Honesty", followed by "More Examples of How Some Unbelievers Value Ridicule Over Honesty Part 2". The latest installment is "An Informal Debate with Some Atheists". He has some links embedded to further document his accounts.

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 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 ( 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.

October 21, 2012

More On Atheistic Reasoning

While going through some forums and Weblogs, I found some old hate mail, comments and so on. The terrible reasoning skills of atheists and evolutionists is astonishing. Most of the modern Internet atheists on pa-TROLL are consumed with hate for God and his people, and seek to destroy the faith of others. (Do they give Mohammedans even one tenth of the vitriol that they spew on Christians? Of course not! That should give a reasonable person something to think about.) A large number are bitter apostates who are so stupidified by their hatred that they cannot put two coherent thoughts together. Also, there is an unbelievable amount of (unwarranted) pride in them.

I have noticed some consistent patterns:
  • Blaming. Their problems are the fault of others.
  • Playing the victim card. Not only will they blame other for their problems, but they tend to have an "Oh, poor me!" attitude — especially when someone stands up to their attacks, then they turn from aggressor into a child.
  • Personal attacks. Weak-minded and unstable people are more interested in attacking a person because they cannot defeat them with reason. So what if I'm a bad man? I'm still right and you're still wrong, Buttercup. (Norman the Paranoid Troll lashes out with libelous diatribes but does not back up his childish rants with documentation.) In one Weblog, I was being attacked for making a comment — but it was not me that made the comment! The guy was so obsessed with hate, he was having a tantrum. I don't think he apologized to the person he maligned, either. Whatever, man. No point in defending myself against irrational people.
  • Exceptional narcissism.  "It's all about me!" I would write about a stalker or hater, and someone (like Norman) would think I was writing about him. What is really interesting is when I make up a hypothetical situation, or simply make a joke, and someone who had nothing to do with the thing gets his panties in a bunch.
  • Self-Identifying. This is a kind of sub-point to the one above. It has happened many times: I write or talk about a hater, stalker, situation or whatever, and someone comes along and says, "He's talking about me! That's libel!" They're so angry and hateful that they are saying, "Yes! I am the idiot that did the amazingly stupid thing he's talking about!" If they had stifled themselves, they would not have to worry about people knowing that they are the subjects under discussion. I've got some bad news for you, Sunshine: You're not my only hater, stalker, troll or whatever.
  • Liars hiding in lairs. This is so cute, it's precious. They have forums, boards, special Weblogs and whatever else you want to call their places to congregate. It's like a religious gathering. In their assemblies, they combine all kinds of nonsense: Character assassination (since they cannot overcome the opposition's ideas with reason), libel, blaming, protecting their atheistic and evolutionary religious "principles" as well as their heroes, organizing trolling raids, getting other weak-minded people to side with them, ridiculing the straw men, assigning motives to people (appeal to motive fallacy), justifying their behavior — basically just whining — whew! And that's just before lunch. 
Many are just plain stupid. That's right, I said it! Are people like this employable? They spend a great deal of time doing nonsense, so probably not. This kind of evil never sleeps. One thing I am certain about for types like this: They keep building up their bloated egos with fellow reprobates, but they will never gain the respect of intelligent people.  


October 20, 2012

Recorded Live for Your Listening Pleasure

Actually, it's not recorded live for anyone's pleasure. Rather, this is to instruct and inform.

"What are you nattering on about, Cowboy Bob?"

Some people want me to do podcasts. I'm not sure about that yet. I was on a radio show/podcast recently. We discussed atheism, logic, how atheism is fundamentally flawed in the logic department, stalkers, Christians, presenting the gospel message, worldviews, evolutionary presuppositions and more. Here is a link so you can listen and find out more.

Here is a music video:

Subscribe in a reader