Stormbringer's Thunder

You’ll forgive me if I am a bit snarky, but I’m not going to pull any punches. You’ve been warned. (This is also going to be somewhat link-heavy; to really follow along you might have to follow me around the internet. I will also be wordy… pack a lunch.) I have two main points. First, atheism is a paper tiger. Second, the real threat to Christianity is not found outside the church, but from within. I suppose the first bleeds into the latter in a way, but they are somewhat separate points. Now by atheism I am referring, for the sake of this post, to popular atheism such as you’ll hear from the average person, advocated in comments on facebook, the same  kind that’s advocated by the popular atheist evangelists like Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, and Dawkins. These guys are not sophisticated thinkers. They are not philosophers and they frankly, don’t even care enough to do any homework on what they speak on. The whole sorry bunch should have stuck to Dawkins’s wise decision to

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

Today's article is quite timely. I mentioned Norman the paranoid troll in my last post, and he stepped up irrational, personal attacks. Yes, I like to provoke — for a reason: To show what is inside. It ain't purty. One of his favorite mantras is how Christians are awful people. (By the way, I mention Norman because of his breathtaking insanity, but he is far from being the only atheist that makes the "Christians are awful people" assertion.) I am not impressed by such an attack. Not only do these atheists expect Christians to meet their personal expectations, but when we fail (something that must happen because their "standards" are not only arbitrary, but can shift moment to moment), they can say, "See? Christians are bad. There is no God!" I believe it is a shallow cop-out, especially since atheists have no moral foundation; we cannot say, "You are a bad atheist ". No, this excuse is one-sided, cheap and convenient. But enough of my

Buona sera. In the past, I have shown some horrible logical fallacies that I have endured. So, I've decided to use them to inform and edjamakate people.  To facilitate that metric (wait, I can't stand that expression) help achieve this goal (there, much better), I thought it would be good to show errors of logic. No, I am not into the "hardcore" stuff, with mathematics and such. Instead, this will be what real people use. Sometimes I will use the Latin terms, but not always. Some fallacies are blurred, combined and overlap, so I will simply describe what is happening and how to avoid being tricked. When you see these schemes and errors for what they are, you are less vulnerable. There have been many times that I have seen logical fallacies utilized by leftists and atheists to further their ends, and felt that I could have a separate Weblog devoted to such irrational "thinking". (Conservatives and Christians are not immu

Buon giorno. Normally, this material would be put up at "A Soldier for Jesus" as a reference point for Christians. This one has material that can be of interest for both sides of the fence, for Christians who want to strengthen their faith, and for skeptics who want to honestly examine evidence supporting the Gospels. Apologetics 315 posted this on Tuesday, May 26, 2011. They give so much good information, I feel armed and dangerous, capice? Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts In this talk provided by Lanier Theological Library, Dr. Peter J. Williams presents New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts . As well as answering some common objections (by the likes of Bart Ehrman), Williams points out a number of lines of evidence that build a case for eyewitness accounts. (Includes some undesigned coincidences.) Check out the video (with powerpoint slides) on vimeo here . Or listen to the audio below. Featured at the excellent

Buona sera. At first, this was going to be a simple addendum to Part 1 of this series, but decided it would be a force fit instead of complementing the existing material. So, here we go with some new-ish material. As I had stated before, if someone was going to simply make up a religion and write a holy book (a ludicrous idea even on the surface when applied to Christianity), they would not be clever enough to put in all sorts of details where people deny the faith, betray God, do dreadful things to each other, get severely disciplined by God and so on. That is, these details in the Bible add to the "ring of truth". Know the expression, "The devil is in the details"? Well, details show lack of the either the devil or of conniving men. People will come up with a book of sayings and say that it is a "lost" Gospel. Those "gospels" were "lost" for a good reason: They stink. If someone wants to read one of those things, I recommend that

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

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

From Apologetics 315.  There are some interesting comments about Hume's work and circular reasoning. The Question of Miracles: Interview with Craig Keener. Click here for the rest .

Edit: Tweaked for wording. Buon giorno. Part 2 of this set should be up in a week or two, when the audio becomes available. I had some nice talks on the radio with an apologist... But never mind about that now. One of the apologetics podcasts that I hear is Greg Koukl on " Stand to Reason ". He is yet another former atheist turned apologist for the Christian faith. He has a radio show , and gives monologues as well as receives calls (presumably from people who have not insulted his family online like they have done to other podcasters ). They have materials for defending the faith. Greg and his fellow apologists give lectures, have debates, write articles, are staunch pro-lifers — you know, busy. Here is a section from the podcast for April 3, 2011 . I did not want to have you wait through the fishing stories and other materials; Greg has almost three hours that he does each week, so there are less intense discussions as well. Anyway. This discussion with a caller touche

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

Buona sera. Looks like it's media weekend here, huh? I'm going to close it out with a piece of audio. I have been listening to the podcasts of " Evidence 4 Faith " Christian apologetics. They had been doing some material on critical thinking skills, logical fallacies and the like. Before they went into their March 13, 2011 discussion on "What Makes a Good Argument", my letter was read on the air. This is further verification of my discussions with Rev. Matt Slick of CARM regarding the obstreperous nature of Internet atheists. Two of my pet trolls are mentioned, and it turns out that Keith and Kirk have the same kinds of problems that I have. Obviously, they have more than I do because they have been doing an apologetics ministry for several years. (They said that I have a "ministry". Well, I sort of have one, but this is not it.) By the way, I wonder if Keith Kendrex has heard the "Made in Europe" version of "Stormbringer" b

Buona sera. My father was a pastor. He was not very fond of enthusiastic people forming Bible study groups without some form of leadership or guidance. His response was, "A pooling of ignorance". I saw later that it was true to some extent. When you have people sharing thoughts but nobody has studied the subject or had a study guide, people can arrive at completely wrong ideas through a type of democratic process. (I am not advocating the other extreme, that you cannot understand anything without approved leadership, otherwise we should all become Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses and be told what to think.) Some degree of knowledgeable leadership can help. The same pooling of ignorance happens in atheist circles. Recently, I have been reminded of the "Old Testament God is evil" mindset. How did they get their ideas? Certainly not through researching or consulting experts, which would be imperative with such a serious claim. Referring to Richard "Daffy&

Buona sera. There have been a few articles and discussions regarding the supernatural here and elsewhere in which I have been involved. One of the main points is whether or not (or when and how ) to use "the supernatural" (or miracles, God or other explanations). Well, Podcast #177 from Please Convince Me apologetics addresses these matters to some extent, as well as discussing the Virgin Birth, the Early Gospels and other issues. It runs about an hour, but at least it's free. And the host is very qualified regarding what qualifies as evidence. You can listen to that here .

"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." — Sir Francis Bacon I have to admit that I'm stumped about something. And I do not like writing an article of this nature, where I am responding to something said about me in the comments section of another Weblog. But I feel that I should. There was a comment about me at "Atheist Central", but I am reluctant to name the source. I'm thinking that he (?) may not want to be named outright, here. Well, if he (?) wants to leave a comment and claim it, then fine, I'll acknowledge it. But he will not, since he said (among other hateful things), "Thankfully, my atheistic moralit

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

"What Naaman did was childish. It was foolish. It was an insult to his intellectual dignity. But what he did cured his leprosy. He was cured because of his faith, his humility and his obedience. God was the one who healed him, but the way to his healing came through the very low door of humility."   — Ray Comfort Buon giorno. I thought I could take the week off because I had five days' postings all lined up on Sunday, but no, another inspiration hit me. And yes, I said that philosophical debates become a waste of time. I'm going to give you some of my philosophy. You can sit there and look pretty. Nicky, you can just sit there. When it comes to presenting evidence for the existence of God, the validity of the Bible &c., I have observed several "brick walls" constructed to disallow contrary viewpoints. As far as I'm concerned, this comes down to "making your own rules".  This tactic is used when a mind is made up and does not

Welcome to the exciting conclusion! I strongly recommend that you read Part 1 here before reading this. Just don't be like those who are afraid of the truth , and only spend about a minute there. I have to start this section with an admission of error. When I said that the atheists that I knew when I was younger were more "live and let live", that was mostly true. However, I must not have circulated in the right circles, because arrogant militant atheism has been around for quite a long time. My perceptions were incomplete. Part of the difference is the Internet. In my last installment, I said that today's atheists are cowards because they can hide their obnoxious selves behind anonymity, and say things online that they would not have the guts to say in person. That is probably what I dealt with in the past, that those atheists most showed some amount of civility and did not try to cram their anti-religion down my throat. Oh, that's right. Atheists den

Buon giorno. Let me start with an excuse. It's only been about six weeks since I have actively come back to my Christian faith, and I am still lacking in the "Christian love" department. But I do know about truth. And I'm not in the mood to coddle anybody, so put on your "I'm all gwowed up" pants and brace yourselves. I have learned quite a bit over the past few weeks about the modern breed of atheists. My regular readers know that I've been around for quite a while. During those years, I've encountered atheists. One guy in 1974 (I was 14) was railing in school that "all Christians should be burned at the stake!" I never did find out what brought that on. Other than him, most of the atheists have been civil, "live and let live" types who may or may not want to discuss their beliefs. For that matter, some people call themselves atheists simply because they haven't given serious thought about God and the