Stormbringer's Thunder

Buon giorno.  It has been over four years and over eight hundred posts on this Weblog alone. Add my other Weblogs, and my total is easily over a thousand posts. Most of those are my own work, but I have been increasing the number of links to other sites lately. One reason is obvious, that I believe they have something worth reading. The other reason is to give myself a break. I put a great deal of work into most of these posts, plus heart and soul. It gets draining. In a word: Burnout. Some of my longer-term readers know that I rededicated my life to Jesus just over a year ago, after rudely putting God on the back burner for about fifteen years. So, my interests and what I emphasize here has shifted, obviously. But I still maintain that this is a general-purpose Weblog, going where I want to go. Or where God leads. I was questioning if I was getting burned out, or if my priorities were out of order. Does God still want me doing this in the first place? I mentioned to Rhom

This bit from Apologetics 315 was waiting for me in my e-mail this morning : Can Atheists Live Without God? by Norman Geisler MP3 21 Jun 2011 In this audio from The Voice of Truth Podcast , Norman Geisler speaks on the subject: Can Atheists Live Without God?  Geisler discusses what atheists say, what the Bible says, and what the evidence shows. He argues that atheists can't live without God logically, morally, psychologically, and religiously. Full MP3 Audio here . (55 min) [Hint: You can safely skip the first five minutes.]

For some time, I've been wondering if the the obstreperous atheists that I've encountered are social misfits; do they have employment? Will anyone hire people with such attitudes in the first place? (Aside from the New York DMV, I seriously wonder.) I also wonder if some of the viciousness I have seen is symptomatic of more serious emotional and mental issues. "Simple Apologetics" discusses the negativity of atheists. In addition, there are other articles exploring atheism. In this post, my goal is to clarify the logical connections between atheism, determinism, and negative social outcomes. It is very important to note that this post is not saying that atheists (the people) are responsible for more negative social outcomes compared to people with other belief systems. There are a wide range of variables that affect what choices we make. "At the same time, there are clear connections between: a) affirming that everything that exists is composed of matter,

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 .