Showing posts with label bigotry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bigotry. Show all posts

May 30, 2019

Social Media Speech Police

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It seems a mite ironic that I began using this platform back in 2007 so I could have my say on various topic, and today I am complaining that various social media outlets are becoming more and more opposed to free speech — at least, among Christians and Conservatives.


Social media are becoming more and more heavy-handed in anti-Christian and anti-Conservative discrimination. This affects free speech itself.
Made at Atom Smasher
Facebook is frequently in the news by alternative media for discrimination and censorship. Hate speech against Jews, Christians, and Conservatives is just fine, but the sidewinders in charge will shut down Pages and accounts by people who are not atheists, anti-creationists, terrorists, socialists, and the like. Reporting those for clear violations of Fazebook's alleged Terms of Service are usually worthless. Two standards, no waiting.



Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)

Aside from their lackadaisical approach and blatant hypocrisy on their ToS, Fazebook removes Christians, Conservatives, and supporters of Israel (I have had posts and accounts removed, reported that my personal information was published to no avail, and know other Christians who have met the same heavy-handed censorship). Candace Owens was suspended for a non-violation, but was reinstated after a tremendous outcry. Do a search for "Diamond and Silk" who were suspended and reinstated on social media as well. Other people have not been so fortunate.

Several people were banned from Fazebook, and most of them were labeled as "right wing" (which means people that do not follow the leftist worldviews of the platform owners). Some people are saying that such activity is illegal, but I am not convinced because things like Facebook, Twitter, and others can make their own rules to some extent. It would be helpful if they admitted that Bible-believing Christians and political Conservatives are unwelcome. I have commented to FB that they are not too big to fail, and they can become as relevant tomorrow as Myspace is today.

There are alternatives to Facebook being presented such as MeWe that promise free speech, and others are also trying to make themselves known. I do not know about an alternative to Twitter, which is unfortunate because Twitter is no better than FB. Apparently, it's okay for Twitter and Fazebook to engage in bigotry and bullying because they have the political and moral high ground: leftism and secularism.


Who watches the watchers? Facebook and Twitter do not support free speech despite their claims. Their censorship is based on personal leftist preferences, not standards. Don't be disunderstanding me now, I am not supporting all forms of free speech such as racism, threats of violence, and so forth. But supporting leftist political agendas and suppressing Christian and Conservative values are hostile to a free society.

There is an article by Dr. Albert Mohler that I would like to submit for your approval. See "The New Thought Police? Facebook's Evicted Seven And The Future of Free Speech".

December 24, 2018

Atheistic Anti-Holiday Foolishness

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Canada has been doing a whole whack of stuff that is anti-family, anti-conservative, anti-free speech, and anti-Christian. Like many other parts of the world (including these here United States), this kind of behavior by governmental and legislative officials has been increasing. Atheists whined, and were financially rewarded. What, is Canada turning into France and surrendering to bad behavior?


Atheist parents in Canada sued a school and won over Christmas and Hanukkah displays. In reality, they lost on many levels.
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach
Up yonder in British Columbia, an atheist family complained about religious holiday symbols (atheists complain a lot, it's their nature). "You have to stop what you're doing and everybody else has to comply to our demands", it seems. The school didn't want those obstreperous schmendricks in their establishment, so they said not to come back. The atheists sued and won!

Although what used to be civil and legal rights were on the side of the school, when you have leftist misotheists in power, rights do not matter any longer. While the atheists "won", they actually lost:
  • They are teaching their child intolerance and bigotry.
  • The child is learning that whining and seeking legal action are the way to settle disputes.
  • This child is also learning to be a jerk, expecting the rest of the world to cave in to his or her narrow demands.
  • Schools are supposed to be places of learning, including what other people think and believe. It appears that these unfit parents want to keep the kid in a bubble, unaware that other people think and feel differently.
  • Unless something changes drastically, this child is learning to be unfit in dealing with other people, whether in Canada or other cultures; shielding the kid does not work.
People celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. That means songs, symbols, greetings, decorations, and so forth. Despite the efforts of misotheists, most calendars number the years based on the fact that God the Son, the Creator, entered his creation to redeem us. Trying to change AD and BC to CE and BCE are shallow efforts to deny historical reality. Is the child going to complain about the years on calendars or stamped on coins?  Perhaps Junior will become a Christian despite the efforts of atheo-fascist parents.

I'm going to ride down a side trail for a moment. Some professing atheists are "live and let live". That is, "You believe, I don't. Let's go on about our business". Those seem to be fewer as time goes on, but this one realizes that Christmas is a big part of our culture:


The biggest loss that these parents will receive is at the Judgment of Christ. Although they suppress the truth of God's existence in unrighteousness, they know (and their child knows) deep inside that God exists. Hell is getting hotter for them because of hindering their little one. They need to repent. Then they can celebrate the birth of Jesus with a few million of the rest of us. Until then, they can work on Christmas instead of getting a day off and celebrate the virgin birth for the God they hate. Christmas and Hanukkah still happen, whether atheopaths like it or not.



October 31, 2018

Protestants, Atheists, and Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is a picture of a young guy with a beginner's mustache, glasses, and he has one eyebrow raised. His shirt is printed, "I'm an atheist debate me". The caption reads, "Atheism A Religion People Join to Appear Smarter". Although it has been given many captions, I like this older one the most. You can see it here if you like, the one I'm talking about should be at the top. Anti-creationists get rambunctious with it, but I believe the original picture is a parody of atheists' attitudes.

Atheists pretend to be smarter than Christians, but reality shows otherwise.
Bellvue Baptist Church photo credit: Freeimages / Ricky Gipson
The majority of American atheists are younger males and white. The caption about "appear smarter" is especially fitting, as many atheopaths are trolling the web, trying to impress others with their genius. They get upset when we point out their poor logic, and frequently display their ignorance, such as in a 3-on-3 debate that I wrote about. Professing atheists today are not too likely to do their thing and let us do our thing. No, atheo-fascists want us silenced, mein Herr. (Regular readers have seen my reports of blind hatred from a criminal cyberstalkers.) The great irony that they miss is when they claim that they are more intelligent than "theists" by virtue of being atheists, they are demonstrating fallacious thinking! Many times, these Mighty Atheists™ display their super powers, but only demonstrate poor logic, narcissism, and bigotry.

Click for larger ("Tweets" are public domain)
Atheists have extreme faith in their religion. By denying that atheism is a religion because they reject a deity, they are ignoring definitions of religion. (Ironically, they have their own naturalistic miracles for their worldview) Also, they build a straw man argument by using the hoary canard that "faith is believing in something you know isn't true". R.C. Sproul wrote
The first assertion that faith is rational means that faith is intelligible. It is not absurd or illogical. If biblical revelation were absurd and irrational, it would be utterly unintelligible and meaningless. The content of the Bible cannot pierce the soul of a sentient creature without first going through the mind. It was Augustine who declared that faith without evidence is credulity. At this point we understand that though faith is rational, it is also reasonable. Biblical faith does not call people to crucify their intellect or take irrational leaps of faith into the darkness with the hope that Christ will catch us. Rather we are called to leap out of the darkness and into the light. 
God requires us to have faith (Habakkuk 2:4, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 11:6). Cowboy up and realize that God does not require his people to do stupid things. Faith is real and important, and has nothing in common with the way professing atheists portray it, you savvy?

Some people say that they want to raise their children with no religious input and "let them decide for themselves". Congratulations, you just told your children that there is no ultimate truth, and that philosophies are like choosing hats. I was recently told about someone in her 20s who recently visited a church for the first time. Her parents were "not religious", but by their lifestyle, they were still influencing their children. 

You will also hear, "I don't believe in religion, I believe in science!" Science is a tool, and a philosophy for interpreting data. It is based on one's worldview. Atheists begin with materialism and see evidence for evolution, and Bible-believing Christians see evidence that supports Scripture that tells us about our Creator. Going beyond materialism and into human experience on the spiritual level, there are no atheists, only those who suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-23). 

If you've noticed, atheists as a whole are not the ones spearheading disaster relief efforts, building hospitals or schools, or anything else. Sure, individual atheists contribute to science and society, but the heavy lifting is done by Christians. Today is Reformation Day because when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg door, the Reformation "officially" started. Actually, it had been in the making for some time before, and continued afterward. Luther promoted public education.

It is interesting that Protestants have more interest in having science in their lives than atheists, and display more logical thinking! Well, that was the case in the past more so than now, because of the secularization and Islamization of various nations. Today, state education systems are indoctrination centers for atheism and evolution, but people are not learning the truth, nor are they learning critical thinking.

Now we come to an article I strongly recommend: "Who’s Got Logical Reasoning? Protestants, Not Atheists".


February 22, 2017

Secular Science Industry Getting More Nutty

In "Blind Bias in the Secular Science Industry", we saw that those organizations are not aloof and impartial in the slightest, and have a distinct leftist bias. For that matter, I'll borrow a line I heard: they're so left wing, they fly in circles. We're used to secularists in the science industry and their sycophant press opposing biblical creation science and using devious as well as distinctly unscientific methods. Now they're getting downright nutty — but then, we've seen quite a few leftists becoming totally unhinged from hatred, haven't we?


The secular science industry and media are increasingly biased toward leftist politics, but are getting downright nutty.
Credit: Freeimages / Jason Antony
At this writing, Donald Trump has just completed the first month as the American President, with 23 left to go. I'm not his biggest fan, but from what I've seen so far, he may end up doing a very good job; I'm cautiously optimistic. Before the inauguration and in that first month, people were acting like he's going to destroy their civil rights and become a dictator. The secularists were even worried that they would lose money ("scientific integrity" is the code word). Despite reason and the American Psychiatric Association, some nutty psychologists were "analyzing" Trump — as if you can analyze a public figure that you've never met and has not been in office for very long! Unethical dolts.

Another example of unethical behavior from supposed professionals is that a new "medical theory" for Trump's "bizarre behavior" is due to neurosyphilis. The New Republic floated this hit piece and made it sound like serious, unbiased health professionals have examined Donald Trump. No, it's leftists and sore losers whining. That, and the psychological "diagnosis" nonsense mentioned above are not examples scientific integrity, old son, they're leftist politicking, plain and simple.

Let's ride a different trail for a while, shall we? Here's an excerpt from the Murray Leinster's 1963 story, "Med Ship Man":

Calhoun reread the briefing. Maya was one of four planets in this general area whose life systems seemed to have had a common origin, suggesting that the Arrhenius theory of space-traveling spores was true in some limited sense. A genus of ground-cover plants with motile stems and leaves and cannibalistic tendencies was considered strong evidence of common origin.
The story assumes evolution happened on other planets, and presents a panspermia version of abiogenesis. I had to suspend my disbelief and accept those fictional realities, and the story was rather good. But ETs, abiogensis, and spores-to-space traveler evolution belong in science fiction.

Are secular scientists sane? They are determined to find any kind of evidence for evolution so they can deny the Creator, and since aiogenesis did not happen here, it must have happened way up yonder. Even the so-called building blocks of life. You can just imagine the cry, "We found amino acids on other planets, so life must have evolved out there. There is no God. We're saved!" Nutty. Searches for ET are really going off the rails.

The preceding paragraphs are leading up to something. (That's what preceding paragraphs do, you see.) I'd be much obliged if you'd read this article that has many examples of nuttiness in the secular science industry, "Questioning the Sanity of Big Science and Big Media".




December 28, 2016

More On Facebook Double Standards

Christians, biblical creationists, people with a Conservative bent, pro-life supporters, those of us who believe that marriage was established as between one man and one woman — Facebook detests us. Not surprising, since it's appallingly leftist and atheistic. You know the old saying, "A fish stinks from the head down", and that fits Fazebook. They say that they want people to feel safe and feel welcome, but that's a lie, plain and simple.

Facebook claims to want a safe and welcoming environment for everyone. That is false. A parody image is linked in this post.

Linked below is a parody. It was assembled from real incidents, but the reports were modified with made-up names. Still, this is how it feels for those of us who indulge in real hate speech and bigotry that Bookface approves, but are recipients of strong action when we promote our own values. For the parody image, click here.


November 11, 2016

Hating Donald Trump Near and Far

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is an amazing amount of vitriol aimed at Donald Trump, his supporters, and Christians. There were many Christians who did not support him, or (like me) only did so reluctantly in hopes that he meant what he said about appointing Supreme Court judges that are pro-life [1], supporting religious freedom [2], and he promises to uphold the Constitution [3]. Whether or not appointed judges betray the values they claim to uphold (like some have done) remains to be seen. Also, there's that "down ticket thing", people running for other offices; it wasn't just a presidential election, you know.


So Donald Trump won the election. Some are celebrating, some are full of hate and rage. Ideologues hate not getting what they want. Why did he win, why did Clinton lose, and what lies ahead?

I'm cautiously optimistic, and hope he gets advisers who know what they're doing. Christians need to pray for him [4]. I'd like to recommend a Christian analysis of the election on Janet Mefferd's podcast [5]. For some interesting discussion from a secular source, I had a great time listening to analysis and callers on this podcast by Chris Plante [6].

Hillary Clinton is a monster leftist who is a radical pro-abortionist. Abortion is the modern version of child sacrifice to Molech, and she wants to make it even more accessible. More? Right now, an unfit mother can be in the middle of giving birth, say she doesn't want to continue, so the murderous doctor can shove in a knife and kill the child on the spot. It's commonly called "partial-birth abortion" [7]. Amazing how heartless people want to put this wicked woman into the highest office in the land. Don't get me started on crimes and the way she treats people...

Perhaps Trump also won because of the contempt that leftists have for voters [8], such as Hillary calling half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables" [9]. (I don't recollect Donald Trump giving blanket insults for Clinton supporters.) It's also been said that people have had enough of a Clinton/Obama/Clinton political dynasty. For that matter, Obama and Clinton were pushing toward Marxist globalism and surrendering American sovereignty (Obama circumvented the Constitution with his executive orders [10], and some of us believe we were on the way to a dictatorship), and Trump's victory is seen as a win against globalism as well [11]. The trend toward globalism may be faltering, as is seen with Brexit [12]. Two others offering analysis to consider: Matt Walsh has some ideas on how leftists can come to terms with their crybaby hysteria: they lost because Clinton was lousy [13], and Albert Mohler has some interesting thoughts about how the election of Trump was a repudiation of not only Clinton, but also of political elitism [14]. 

Sneering at Trump has come from other world leaders, but that seems to happen whenever a Republican wins (or even runs for office), people commence to whining. Leftists sneer and ridicule. That's what they do, it's their nature. The United States is not yet a socialist country and we're not interested in electing leaders to please people in other countries, you savvy?

Too bad people within our borders can't grow up.

Several celebrities said they'd leave the country if Trump won [15]. That nonsense has happened before [16]. What in the world are they thinking? People will adore them so much, even though they're not close personal friends, that they'll vote for Hillary so the celebrities will stay put? Those sidewinders are just being manipulative as well as stupid.

How about schools that offer "emotional support" [17] for students because Shrillary lost and Trump won? Or the Yale professor that makes midterm optional [18] because the poor children are so upset? Or the students that burned the flag [19] because Trump won? Or the detestable people who want Trump assassinated [20]? How about the temper tantrums by leftists [21] over a legitimate election?

EDIT 11-12-2016: 
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
Interesting that Republicans and Conservatives don't have these problems. Perhaps it's because we cowboy up and deal with things. Some folks say that the rest of the world is laughing at America (as if they did a survey). Not laughing because of Trump, I think it's because we're turning into a nation of wimps. Those of us who stand up for what's right scare the leftists.

Some people are upset over the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by about 337,000 votes of the 120, 212,000 or so that were recorded (not including absentee ballots and others to consider, but are including votes from tampering with voting machines [22], illegal aliens [23], votes from dead people [24], and other fraud). They're angry that the Electoral College foils their fun and will place Trump as president (the Electoral College has rarely overruled the popular vote before). In a way, the small margin of difference in the popular vote is irrelevant [25], as the Electoral College was put into place to protect citizens from mob rule [26].

I heard the Chris Plante Show for election day, and a caller remained anonymous. He was a registered Democrat who voted for Trump but had to keep his mouth shut out of fear of retaliation. I remember similar things when George W. Bush was running for president, cars would get their paint "keyed", people would be verbally harassed. Never heard of it happening the other way around, and no Republican riots happened when B. Hussein Obama was elected [27].


"But I still believe in America, and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power.

"We don't just respect that. We cherish it. It also enshrines the rule of law; the principle we are all equal in rights and dignity; freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values, too, and we must defend them." 
— Hillary Clinton, November 9, 2016 [28]

Although I dislike giving narcissistic atheopaths any attention, some give me good material for examples of bad thinking and rage. Here is an astonishing vituperative attack from a bitter British tinhorn who hates God, Christians, Donald Trump, and especially biblical creationists. I've challenged him repeatedly to say why someone or something is evil based on his atheistic worldview, but he continuously dodges the challenge. That's because atheism is irrational and has no consistent foundation for morality. He has no legitimate basis to say of me, "The man is evil. As well as extremely hypocritical. And he hates the only politician who stands between the evil of Trump and the White House [29]." On what basis am I evil? What makes Trump evil? How can someone with any sense or conscience think Clinton is decent? By the way, he also does not understand the American political system.

Here is a screenshot of his bitter whining (click for larger):


Narcissistic atheopath is bigoted.

This is posted at a forum of anti-creationist bigots [30]. Yes, really. BCSE promotes censorship [31].
  • "A load of fundamentalist US Christians"
    Uh, did you take a survey? Not hardly. About 60 million votes for Trump were cast from people with a variety of religious and non-religious views [32].
  • "got into bed with the fascists"
    Loaded terminology fallacy. Fascist? He keeps using that word. It does not mean what he thinks it does [33].
  • "voted for a pathological liar"
    Documentation, please. Not just emotion-provoking rhetoric, we have plenty of that here in the US anyway.
  • "because they think he is more sympathetic to hardline 'biblical values' than the other candidate"
    He frequently uses the appeal to motive fallacy. Also, documentation would be helpful, especially since there are Christians who don't believe Trump upholds our values very well [34], "hardline biblical" or not. There are even sanctimonious professing Christians who have unfavorably judged other Christians who voted for Trump.
  • "But let's salute and remember all those other Christians, conservatives, liberals and independents who listened to their conscience."
    Is that a contradiction of the previous section? More likely, he's redefined those "other" people as those who meet his approval because they voted for Hillary Clinton.
He added, "These right wing bigots (Ken Ham on his facebook is another one) don't understand - or do understand but don't care - that there is genuine fear (and shock) within the US population at the election of Trump. As long as those awful 'anti-Christian' liberal Democrats have been shafted that's all they care about." [35] That loathsome hatred is not worth analyzing. Sure does hate Bible-believing Christians, doesn't he? It would be helpful for incoherent people to refrain from making ridiculous statements in public forums. Especially when a quick look at the facts contradicts such statements. 

Interestingly, despite this guy's arrogant ignorance (he probably gets his information from leftist Brit media and leftist American media), some people in other countries know a great deal about the American political process, even better than some Americans. I know this guy in Thailand as well as a non-citizen creationary scientist that could edjamakate a passel of Americans on what goes on.

Remember that the Democrat Party is on record for booing God [36]. You'll be hard pressed to find knowledgeable, Bible-believing Christians and biblical creationists who are loyal Democrats. Just look at their policies and actions. Hillary Clinton would continue Obama's anti-Christian and Marxist activities (I received a posted comment that was accurate, "A Clinton presidency would be the failed Obama presidency on steroids"). There are times when someone will run for office as a Democrat because he or she cannot defeat the local, corrupt Republican machine. In those cases, people vote for the candidate, not the party. Such instance are rather rare.

Leftists like anti-creationists and are in favor of the globalization initiatives of the politically-oriented pseudoscience of "climate change". (The character in the above screenshot said, "Trump denies climate change and Pence denies evolution" [37].) I found out after the election that Mike Pence is a creationist [38] (learned it from an Australian, no less), so that makes him a bad man according to evolutionists. Look up "Mike Pence creationist" on a search engine and see the evolutionists who are using the lie that he is "anti-science", which is a conflation of "science" with "evolution". I've not heard Trump discuss creation science or evolution. 

It is indeed unfortunate that anti-Christian, anti-creationist ideologues are so myopic that they hate Donald Trump even before he began his duties. The left has been slapping leather with Christians, Conservatives, and Republicans to support leftist goals. Since such a climate is actually bad for real science (see the references at "An Improper Environment for Science" [39]). Trump's pro-business views, if he follows through, can be beneficial for science [40].

Although many people in the United States and around the world express views that are decidedly anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, and anti-creationist, they must live with the fact that Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. Some are angry because this thwarts their desires for the United States to continue toward apostasy, globalization, and Marxism (with the expected result of shutting down free speech and religion for Christians and biblical creationists). They demonize Trump, Spence, people who voted for him because that's their nature. They're bigots. It's what they do. Others vote Democrat because they like their traditions, and are sad that their candidate lost.

Even Hillary said we should give Trump a chance. Yes, let's. Christians, we need to pray for him to have wisdom — and safety. I believe God has stayed severe judgement on our country, and we need to pray for that as well.

September 18, 2014

Semantics, Logic and Anti-Christian Bigotry

People get upset over definitions and those who do not know the re-definitions of some words. Anti-creationists and atheopaths will use *their* definitions as excuses to express bigotry and indulge in persecution.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A "meme" that I used on a post 1 provoked some amazingly obstreperous and arrogant comments from anti-creationists. They misused logic and presented some remarks that were saturated with hate. These were predicated on what they considered a misuse of "science", the current definition of the Big Bang. My introductory remarks in the post said that the Big Bang was an explosion, and the article that I linked in the post had did not discuss the Big Bang, it was about other explosions. But they apparently didn't bother to read that one, they wanted to rip the "anti science" of calling the Big Bang an "explosion".

Well, was the Big Bang an explosion? Or, more importantly for this article, is it justified to make such a remark? Yes, definitely. First, the Big Bang is called an explosion (or inferred by words like "cataclysmic") in dictionaries 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, but some must have received the memo that the "explosion" was upgraded to "rapid expansion" 7. Second, science-related sites including NASA, the American Museum of Natural History, National Geographic, PBS, BBC and others refer to it as an explosion 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

Redefining words when the original meanings become inconvenient is becoming more frequent, it seems:
  • "Atheism" is changed from the established meaning of "denial of the existence of God" 14 into the vacuous "lack of belief".
  • "Vestigial organs" moves from meaning leftovers from our evolutionary past that we do not need anymore 15 (false!) into Coyne's "no longer performs the purpose for which it evolved" 16 (begging the question as well as conveniently redefining the word).
  • Although everything came from "nothing", the word "nothing" now seems to mean "almost nothing, but we have to debate what nothing really means now" 17 .
  • The Big Bang is now a "rapid expansion" 18, even though the thing isn't really understood in the first place and gets constantly revised 19, and we have a great deal of evidence that it did not happen 20.
So, the Big Bang is not an explosion, it is a rapid expansion that moved faster than the speed of light 21 and pretty much looked like an explosion, it had previously been defined as an explosion, it really isn't, and if you call the Big Bang an explosion, you'll get slapped down by haughty pseudo-intellectuals who want to play with words. Pretty intolerant of them to be that way when people use completely understandable references to the Big Bang as an explosion.

Hey! Like many other people, and with good reasons, I said the Big Bang is an explosion!

Sorry to keep you, but there were some things that troubled me when I found groups in which this "meme" was "shared" (reposted on Facebook). People were using the redefinition to get uppity and attack Christians and creationists. This "meme" asked, "If someone believes that order can come from an explosion, do I want him repairing my computer?" (Come on, people, things like that are brief, using humor and often making a point.) I concluded that those tinhorns were pretending to use "reason" and "logic" (very badly) as excuses for expressing hatred:





This last one is full-blown atheopathy:

In an article I wrote about how Christian persecution is increasing, I quoted Matt Slick as saying that people act in a manner consistent with their beliefs 22. Indeed, people are expressing irrational opinions. Sometimes they act on them. Bigotry begins with words, and persecution comes from that. It will only get worse. But we were told to expect that (Matthew 5.11, John 15.18-22).

ADDENDUM: Nate has lied about me in the past, and helped prove my point with a worthless comment and loaded terminology. "Damage control"? An article that took about 3-1/2 hours to write and has over 20 supporting links is proving a point. Damage control? Not hardly!


 

April 1, 2014

Global Atheist Holiday

Edited from a previous post.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity:
there is none that doeth good.
 (Psalm 53:1, KJV)

Here is a story that circulates on the Internet. Although it is not true (despite what your e-mail correspondent said), it is still funny.
An atheist created a case against Easter and Passover holy days.

He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays!"

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day.
"Court is adjourned."
I really like the Atheist International Holiday. (Have they recovered already from railing against Christmas?) I like it bunches. You betcha. Atheists gather at the Madalyn Murray O'Hair Memorial Hospital to sing some hymns, read their evolution mythology devotions from Charles Darwin, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins, followed by a video sermon by the departed (but now a believer) Christopher Hitchens (whose brother is a former atheist that became a Christian, by the way). Then, they find a Christian symbol on public land that has not been bothering anyone for decades and start picketing. Their conversation includes the alleged stupidity of Christians, deliberately misunderstanding remarks so they can accuse people of lies, distorting reality and having a grand old time that they make up as they go along.

April 1, the day atheists celebrate! How do they do it? Actually, since they have no hope, no wonder they hate Christians, who DO have hope.

Jester Stańczyk by Jan Matejko, 1862

After that, they venture to the places where Christians are ministering to destitute people and remind them that atheists are so much smarter than they are. Then, they look for other opportunities to practice their religious bigotry. Finally, they adjourn to their festively decorated homes for rum punch and to exchange gifts of brightly wrapped empty boxes while complaining about Christians and the Resurrection observances. The conclusion is to go outside, look at the night sky and chant, "It all happened by chance! We are rational!"


Actually, no wonder they hate us. There is no true joy (Rom 15.13) in their lives, nothing to celebrate (Rev. 19.9, 21.3-4). And there is no hope (Titus 2.13), only condemnation (John 3.36 ESV) in their silly pride (Job 35.12, Prov. 29.23). Too bad, really. It's their choice, but it doesn't have to be this way (John 1.12, 2 Cor. 5.17).

January 5, 2014

More Facebook Double Standards

In a previous post, I discussed and documented the blatant double standards of Facebook, especially against conservative viewpoints, both political and Christian. Here is some more material about that.

J.D., the originator of a parody Page called "Atheists Shouldn't Be Allowed to Reproduce", had complaints and his Page was taken down by Fazebook. He was also put in the time-out corner for a while.



Why? "Atheists Shouldn't Be Allowed to Reproduce" was a parody that J.D. described as being similar to Mad magazine (presumably from the good years). Ironically, Mad magazine is on Facebook, but this parody that is inspired by it was taken down. It did not have obscene images, profanity, racism or offensive to a religion.

Wait...religion? Although atheism is a religion, misotheists do not want to admit this (despite their denials based on ignorance of religion and philosophy). So they are unlikely to have complained that "Atheists Shouldn't Be Allowed to Reproduce" was offensive to their religion. 

Meanwhile, nasty stuff is allowed to continue. I am thinking of Ephesians 5.11-12, that even the names of many of the atheopath groups on Facebook are disgraceful. To avoid offending readers, I obscured the obscene name of this Page:
Even the name of the Page is nasty, let alone the content. Yet, it does not violate their alleged "standards". (I told J.D. about this and learned that he not only reported it, but got the same response.) Others have reported similar wicked Pages and had the same kind of "sucks to be you" responses from the brilliant, kind, compassionate folks at Fazebook. A very few of those Pages have come down, but it amazes us that such blatant hate speech is allowed to continue. Kids see that stuff, you know.

Oh, and the suggestion to ask the owners of the Page to take it down? Yeah, sure. What will you get besides abuse? It's happened to me, I tried the "Ask Whozit to remove the comment you find offensive" because they claim it's the fastest and easiest way to resolve things, and all I got was harassment.


Aside from being nasty, this guy is also amazingly stupid, and is proud to show it in his remarks.
The power behind Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, is an atheist. I wonder if that is part of the problem, that a parody Page about atheists gets shut down, but multiple atheopathic obscene hate speech Pages remain? Even common sense would say, "Shut it down". (There are even Pages set up to attack individuals, and those are also allowed to stand.) I believe that bigotry is rampant in the Facebook management.

By the way, Facebook, these images are posted under Fair Use for information reporting purposes. We wouldn't have to do this kind of thing if you were consistent in your "standards" and bothered to clean up your act. You're sure into political correctness, though, and go after other parody Pages. Don't think this won't backfire on you and affect your market share. Remember when Myspace was the big thing? They faded big time. It can happen to you, too, Buttercup.


September 29, 2013

Atheism, Movies, Genesis and Money



It appears that David Silverman of the American Atheists is getting bent out of shape regarding the Genesis 3D movie. According to The Christian Examiner, he said, "As we have seen in nearly every religion in world history, indoctrinated victims of religion will do anything, including pay large sums of money, to have their antiquated beliefs of immortality validated." What's wrong with doing a fundraiser for a project someone believes in?

Anyway, with his silly rant, I would have dismissed him and moved on. After all, it's absurd to claim that you are celebrating "reason" when using question-begging epithets, prejudicial conjecture, fallacious assertions and simple bigotry. Next! 

But wait. Jason Petersen of "Answers for Hope" likes to get into the philosophy aspects of Silverman's remarks. In fact, he is offering him a chance to discuss his atheistic worldview.
As most of you know, I, as well as Answers for Hope, have thrown their full support behind Creation Today’s Genesis 3D Movie. The movie is going to present Biblical Creation in theaters, in 3D. I can’t express how proud I am of Eric Hovind and his Creation Today team. They are currently doing a fundraiser for $150,000. I encourage you to consider donating to this project. At this time, only $40,000 more is needed to fully fund the project! 
Of course, critics against young earth creation are speaking out. Recently, David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, has spoken out against the movie. I have watched Mr. Silverman’s debates. He is definitely a good speaker, but oftentimes some of the things he says are unsubstantiated or nonsensical. 
You can read the rest of Jason's comments and invitation for dialogue at "A Response to David Silverman’s Comments on the Genesis 3D Movie".

February 12, 2013

Zack Kopplin, Useful Idiot for Evolution



Before you get your knickers in a twist about the use of the word "idiot" in the title, let me point out the historical setting. A "useful idiot" was a supporter of the Soviet Union in the West, and the Soviets held them in contempt. They blindly followed fatally flawed ideology. Zack Kopplin is being used by atheistic evolutionism. Like Bill Nye, he is unclear on several concepts, including the difference between operational and historical science, the profound lack of importance of evolution to scientific development, and more. He has been deceived by fundamentalist atheist evolutionists and is adored by Richard Dawkins and other proselytizers of atheism.

The religious dogma of evolutionism cannot withstand scrutiny and it cannot tolerate competition. Many seek to punish doubters of evolution. (It must drive them batty that this date has been established as Question Evolution Day, huh?) Atheists and evolutionists are usually bigoted and intolerant of any views but their own. They support each other in their dishonesty and oppose free speech. That's right, I said it!

Another tactic they use is to shield inquiring minds from evidence that is embarrassing to evolution. They use ridicule, screaming "Liar!" at anyone who says evolution is wrong, straw men, ad hominems, genetic fallacies, poisoning the well and other juvenile tricks.

When those tactics fail, they use the corrupt judicial system for leverage. There is a Louisiana law in place to allow supplemental materials in schools to help students develop critical thinking. But no, that must be stopped! Evolution must be blindly accepted and defended by Darwin's Stormtroopers. God forbid (heh!) that people learn to think for themselves and actually examine the evidence!
Students are being brainwashed with evolutionary ideas in almost all public schools and museums, and they are expected to accept it uncritically. We’ve made this point many times over the years, but a recent news story has made the brainwashing even more obvious. In 2008, Louisiana passed a bill that would allow teachers in the public school system to “use supplemental materials … to help students critique and review scientific theories.” Such critical thinking skills should be a part of an education process and are part of many state education standards.
Well, a 19-year-old student at Rice University, Zack Kopplin, is on a mission to repeal that law. He is being praised by the secular world for his ambition, as evidenced in a recent article about him.
Atheistic evolutionists do not want any talk of “critiquing” or “thinking critically” about evolutionary ideas, because evolution is their way of explaining life without God, which is why we call evolution a religion. Despite their claims to the contrary, atheists use evolution as their religion to replace God. Evolution is a foundation for their set of beliefs about life and how it arose, just as creation, as described in Genesis, is our set of beliefs about how life arose. Atheists blindly hold to evolution because of their rejection of Christ. Zack Kopplin has seemingly declined to talk about his personal beliefs about God, but many atheists have basically claimed him as one of their own, including the Friendly Atheist, a well-known blogger, who published a post the other day calling Kopplin an atheist.
Intellectually honest people can read the rest of "The Legacy of Brainwashing" and learn something. (Also, Tony at Defending Genesis is on the same trail.) Others can go cry to their friends about how the big, bad creationists are telling the truth again.


January 29, 2013

Evolution, the Welfare Pseudoscience


Did I mention that "Question Evolution Day" is February 12?

Know how government can save billions of dollars? Stop funding religious pseudoscience. Of course, I am talking about evolutionism. It is based on fraud and the pursuit of money, and is a complete waste because there is no practical benefit in it.
As the American people faced a "fiscal cliff" dilemma forcing action on monetary policies which could raise taxes and cut government spending this may be as good a time as any to discuss one of the ways the US government could save vast amounts of money while also cutting suicide rates and increasing the collective American intelligence quotient.
The "theory" of evolution has become the stand-alone hypothesis for how man came into being by the "scientific" community in the western world, but is this real science or is something more sinister afoot? 
Richard Dawkins, arguably the world's most renowned apologist for the worldview of Atheism, once said "I would not be an atheist were it not for the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution is what drives modern atheism". It does seem, now more than ever, that by using fraud and bigotry the atheists are seeking to destroy the faith of an entire generation.
Do you have the nerve to keep reading "The 'Welfare Science' Enigma! Theory of Evolution Based Entirely on Fraud and Bigotry"? Go ahead, if you're not afraid of the truth.

October 30, 2012

Adoration of an Atheist Pope


How can people who claim to love "reason" bow down and worship the atheist popes? Especially Richard Dawkins. His emotive rantings are inconsistent and illogical, and his "morality" is sadly lacking. Most people who want to get along with others will not get in their faces and ridicule their beliefs, but that is what Daffy Dawkins advises.

When inquiring about how much money Dawkins is worth (about an 'undred million quid according to the 2012 "Rich List" of the Sunday Times), people get defensive and ask, "Why do you want to know?", or say, "It's none of your business". Yes, misotheists flat-out lie about the amount of money that creationists and ID proponents have, but it's perfectly acceptable to get rich from hatred and religious bigotry. Double Standard, thy name is "atheist".

Dawkins lied about a debate that he lost, claiming that it never took place. Now he is ready — to dodge debates. Probably because he knows that creationists tend to win the debates.



He is not consistent with his own religion of atheistic evolutionism. Sometimes he says that life could not have evolved because it's too complicated so it life on Earth had to have been seeded by space aliens. Then, he goes back to defending evolutionism. Which is it?

This atheopath is living in a manner consistent with a true evolutionist: Do whatever brings you the most happiness. This includes cowardice, dishonesty, strife and confusion to bring in money and respect of non-thinking worshipers. One of these baffling sycophants is Michael Nugent, who seems oblivious of his hero's many moral failings. He actually calls Dawkins a "caring, sensitive man". Well, maybe he is when it comes to his friends.

Take a look here and read "Irish atheist Michael Nugent called Richard Dawkins a 'caring, sensitive man'", plus information on the global decline of atheism and the rise of Christianity. With "thinkers" who adore Dawkins, no wonder atheism is on the slide. This kind of evil never sleeps.

But then, maybe some people are catching on, as Dawkins is losing Web traffic. 

Subscribe in a reader