Stormbringer's Thunder

— 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 tha

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 gi

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:

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 talk.origins ) 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 g

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 chi

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:

On a broadcast of Evidence for Faith , Keith and Kirk discussed a study from the Psychology Department at the University of British Columbia called " Mentalizing Deficits Constrain Belief in a Personal God ". It shows that people with a tendency toward mental disorders, especially autism, are more likely to be disbelievers. The more severe the autism, the stronger the disbelief. Several projects attempt to determine the causes of atheism. There is probably no single cause, however.  Most atheists appear to be Caucasian adolescent males (which is not a surprise, considering the complaints of sexual harassment from the less numerous atheist females) A majority of atheists seem to have had bad or nonexistent relationships with their fathers A desire for attention Sociopath behavior (especially trolling, personal attacks, unhealthy amounts of time on the Internet in efforts to antagonize Christians) Further, it is seen in their irrational insistence on asserting t

Know how atheists prove that they are right, evolution is true? They attack and ridicule. That's it. No logic, no evidence, just bolstering their egos and dodging the truth by attacking people. It seems that theophobes are not always unaware of their lack of reasoning abilities. In fact, they actively use them to self-justify their hatred of God, Christians and the Bible. Further, they attempt to manipulate emotions to convince people that they are correct in their dreadful quote mining and misrepresentation of the Bible. Knowledgeable Christians are not fooled by these childish displays on the pooling of ignorance sites, but we are dismayed that people can be so vituperative in their ignorance. Further, skeptics think that because they make accusations, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. But that is not the case . A series of articles at the "True Free Thinker" Weblog takes on some of the bad logic and manipulation of certain obstreperous misotheists and their sites

People should know better by now. Do they really want to display their ignorance of history, archaeology, ancient literature and so on by pretending that Jesus himself never existed? Dr. Phil Fernandes easily refutes that silliness. Get comfy, it's over an hour. But well worth it.

"In my view, most of the revisionists are no longer honest scholars, weighing all the evidence, attempting to be objective and fair-minded historians, seeking the truth. Determined to unmask the ideology of others, they have become ideologues themselves. The revisionist and the postmoderns are dangerous because they have created a kind of relativism ― an anything goes attitude ― that makes serious, critical inquiry difficult if not impossible." — William Dever, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Arizona For many years, it has been an established fact that archaeology supports the Bible. (I did an article on that here .) Sure, there were people who were daft enough to say, "Aha! Archaeologists have not found evidence of the Hittites. They did not exist. Your Bible is wrong. There is no God! " (Yes, I have encountered people whose "logic" works that way.) Anyway, they had to eat their words because the Hittites'

Excellent lecture by Dr. Peter Williams giving more evidence that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Get comfy. Although very interesting, it takes about an hour.

Buon giorno. When atheists redefine the established definition of the word "atheist" ("No, we didn't!") into the Dawkinsesque, "I lack belief in God or gods", they are being dishonest. That's right, I said it! The ploy is to say, "You believe in God. I lack belief, so I have nothing to prove. So, you prove it, and I'll just sit here in my lack of belief". Ridiculous. They are making a truth claim that "There is no God". They equivocate God with the Tooth Fairy, but there are no converts to Tooth Fairyism, no philosophers, nobody writing books about how the Tooth Fairy changed their lives. Thinking people should not fall for that insulting, smug nonsense, capice? So, what about the guy who says, "I lack belief in the September 11 terrorist attacks, and I lack belief that the Holocaust happened"? Do you just say, "Oh, since you lack belief, you have nothing to prove"? Like the atheist, they are

I knew it wouldn't take long for atheists to milk and distort the September 11 "anniversary" (for lack of a better word) for their own confused, hateful ends. Sam "Ben Stiller" Harris may have been the first of the atheist popes to hop on the "all religion is evil" express again. He did a piece crying for "intellectual honesty" (a quality that I find sadly lacking in modern Internet atheists, especially since they have the magical ability to discredit articles without even reading them, but I digress). Surprisingly, apologist Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason says that Sam Harris is right, it is  a time for "intellectual honesty". Well, sorta...

Keep an eye out for this fallacy, not only in discussions about faith and reason, but in political arenas. In its simplest sense, the Appeal to Motive fallacy is rather easy to spot. It is a form of the argumentum ad hominem  fallacy . I posted some song lyrics in the comments section of a Weblog, and someone said that I posted them "to feel better about myself". (What gave him the idea that he had insight into my mental processes, I have no idea.) It seems to me that one of the most common indicators that this fallacy has been engaged is terminology resembling, "He/She/You are doing this because...", but the accuser has no way of knowing what is going on inside your soul. In a more difficult manifestation, the Appeal to Motive is not always a fallacy. This is when something tangible can be brought into question, such as, "Snidely is suggesting that we use General Universal Widgetarium because he holds stock in that company". Well, tha

No introduction, here's the text: Attitude Adjustment How did 9/11 change America’s attitude toward religion? A   recent post   on CNN’s Belief Blog says: “Before 9/11, many atheists kept a low profile. Something changed, though, after 9/11. They got loud… Criticism of all religion, not just fanatical cults, was no longer taboo after 9/11.” Indeed. Around the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, American Atheists hit the nightly news by suing to remove a steel cross from the September 11 memorial, even as others were calling it a national monument and a symbol of hope. Still, many atheists say 9/11 is a perfect example of why religion itself is evil. Is Religion Evil? Reminds me of reading Sam Harris’   The End of Faith   years ago. I remember when he started to get popular by insisting that religion itself is dangerous and evil. Although he’s got a lot of fans, a   Religion Dispatches   article recently called him “more charismatic than credentialled” as a speaker. In the sa

Buon giorno.   One of the apologetics podcasts that I listen to 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 from Christians, atheists and other people. A caller wanted to know how to discuss the atheists' claim that they "lack belief", and Greg shows how that claim not only misrepresents itself, but is essentially dishonest and irrational. You can hear that discussion below, or the  entire podcast for August 21, 2011 . [Edit: Also go here for a related post .]

Buon giorno. Here are a couple of audio clips from Matt Slick's "Faith and Reason" radio show. He takes many kinds of calls, whether it's a Christian that wants clarification, a cultist that wants to argue, a Calvinist that wants his Calvinism reinforced — and atheists. I have heard several shows where atheists call in and want to get into some of the heavy philosophical stuff. (When this kind of material goes on for a while, my eyes glaze over and my mind wanders.) Some will give him direct challenges as well. I remember one caller that was so obnoxious and verbally bouncing all over the place, changing definitions and basically making a rational conversation very difficult, Matt told me to give him the message to have him call back so people could see what atheism does to the mind. Good conversations can be had if callers are courteous and have some degree of sense. If you're willing to listen and have a decent exchange, you should have a good call. If,

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