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

July 4, 2020

Eviscerating Atheopathic Objections Again

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In previous years, I had a stalker who was a gold mine for bigotry and logical fallacies. Since he was repetitious and desperate for attention, I decided to instead utilize the abundant resources on teh interwebs. This next furious atheist is another clinquant example of what atheism does to the mind.


An unusual post that starts in the middle of a series of posts, but you will catch on. This angry atheists attempts to respond but only makes things worse.
Background image credit before modification:
Supposed dark matter ring in galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17
Hubblesite (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
This article is going to be a bit tricky to write, but I reckon that I can skip some material and let you catch on, plus give you relevant links. Let me start with some background. This troll Page shares material from Christians and biblical creationists for the purposes of ridicule. I have never seen a cogent argument from her or from her adoring fans. Lots of mockery, straw man arguments, the genetic fallacy, and other typical fare from atheopaths. Also, when she is caught in a lie, she doubles down on it.

To narrow our focus for this examination, I wrote a post titled "Dark Matter Does Not Occupy the Universe", which was shared to The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook. She shared it (naturally refusing to actually engage with the content) and made a number of risible assertions. I followed up with a "Note" that dealt with the ridicule.

Now we come to where she decided to slap leather with me, and this where I returned fire. My original comments will be in green and hers will be in a color that can be called brown. My new comments will be in black. You savvy that, pilgrim? Good. (Dr. Jason Lisle has used this technique.) Also, note that when people want to have intelligent debates, formal or otherwise, they need to know and accurately represent what their opponents actually believe and teach. She does neither.





I just love it when creationtwits think they've "eviscerated" me. Let's tear apart this crap you obviously spent so much time to put together:

//Take a look at this example from an anonymous atheopath (Curtis said it’s someone named Lori)//

My name isn't "Lori". Nor am I a female. So you're 0 for 2. Great start!

She had been called Lori several times before and never objected, and also never denied being female before. Also, since she has been caught lying before, I lack belief that she is being truthful now. (Let's see if anyone catches my own fallacious arguments in that first sentence.) Also, she ignored my remark about being anonymous, a fact which is undisputable.

//whose biggest fan ridicules under a fake name//

Obvious reference to El Bastiano who has never gone by a "fake name" as he's explained a number of times. So, a lie.

It is not a lie, and there has been no evidence given to support the "lie" accusation. By the way, how does anyone know that this character has "never" gone by a fake name? The possibility that I was mistaken was not considered. However, "El Bastiano" now posts under a completely different name now that has no resemblance to the former name. Looks like the accusation of "liar" is itself false.

Let's continue...

//She doesn’t even have the courage to read the things she assumes are wrong or lies//

Again, I'm not a "she". And yes, I won't read crap from creationist sources when it comes to matters of science. Why is it that you can never cite legitimate scientific sources when you make scientific claims? Hmmmmm???

Doubling down on the genetic fallacy. First, rejecting creationist sources and using prejudicial conjecture as well as straw man arguments. Second, "legitimate scientific sources". We have been through this. Apparently, "legitimate" means "atheistic naturalism that supports my presuppositions". This is supported by the refusal to honestly examine any creationist material, whether from someone like me or numerous creation scientists. Mayhaps these people will actually learn what we say? This is one of those people who essentially says that there are no creation scientists. Why? Like the old bumper sticker, "If it ain't country, it ain't music". Well...


I said:

//Scientists know that dark matter exists because they can calculate the amount of mass and it doesn't account for the amount of gravity.//

This is a fact. Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4x6N0uAkTQ

Oh, well if he says it, then everyone who disagrees must be wrong. Especially if it's on YouTube or Wikipedia! Except that this is the appeal to authority fallacy. While Dr. Tyson (who was not under discussion before) is a celebrity popularizer of naturalism, including stellar and biological evolution, he is not the final arbiter of scientific truth. He may change his mind, what then?

She (my accuser) lied by omission because the Note from which she cherry-picked remarks (as well as the original post that brought on this gunfight) had secular scientists who admit that there is no evidence for dark matter. There are other statements in the Note that she ignored as well. Helps to confirm the bias and make her look good to her fan club, don'tcha know.

You respond:

/No, that’s a talking point (an erroneous one at that) based on presuppositions of the Big Bang. //

No, it's not a "talking point", so that's a lie. And it also has nothing to do with "presuppositions of the Big Bang". Scientists don't "presuppose" anything that hasn't been demonstrated to be true. "Presupposing" is what creationists do.

Now she's getting angry and this is like dealing with a schoolgirl who had her big striped lollipop taken away by her third grade teacher. Reminds me of that other stalker who constantly exclaimed, "You're a liar!" Contradiction is not refutation, and the Big Bang is not only a matter of faith that is believed despite the evidence (plenty more about that here), but it is unrecognizable from when it was first postulated.

//For that matter, evidence for the Big Bang is so poor//

Source to back up this ******** claim?

She can see the above link to links, as well as the posts she shared to her Page for the sake of ridicule.

I wrote:

//So they know something is out there.//

You respond:

//Of course, by limiting other possible explanations and seeking to confirm a bias, evidence can be tortured so much, it will confess to anything.//

And what other "possible explanations" are there? Nothing else has ever been demonstrated. Whaddya got here? And "confirmation bias" is the exclusive domain of creationists. They always ignore evidence that doesn't conform to what they want to believe and embrace anything that hints at those beliefs. Noah's Ark, anyone?

She is a village atheopath, not a scientist. And not even honest, since she refuses to examine the material she mocks! Like the old Resurrection lie, "The disciples stole Jesus' body while we were sleeping" (someone cannot know what happened while asleep), how can anyone seriously claim that no other possible explanations have been demonstrated? It does not take much effort to discover that confirmation bias is not "the exclusive domain of creationists". It is common with evolutionists, geologists, politicians, and anyone else. 

Consider: "They always ignore evidence that doesn't conform to what they want to believe and embrace anything that hints at those beliefs." Easy accusation to make, but it is prejudicial conjecture and deflection; this same accusation as been successfully demonstrated by creationists against naturalists for many years. The "Noah's Ark" line has nothing to do with the rest of this, and is simply a non sequitur.

//People like this should know that God exists because the evidence is all around them.//

Pathetic. The world makes complete sense if there is no loving god watching over us. The world makes absolutely NO SENSE if there is a loving god watching over us. And again, the claim that "evidence is all around us" without actually pointing out what that evidence is. Rainbows? Puppy dogs? Sunsets? Give me a break.

Straw man argument again (rainbows, puppy dogs, and so on were not mentioned) as well as prejudicial conjecture and misotheistic bigotry. "The world makes absolutely NO SENSE if there is a loving god watching over us." What empirical method did she use to reach that emotionally-based conclusion? Yes, the evidence is all around. If she does not appreciate beauty and things that bring happiness, she should consider that she has life, a body designed by the Master Engineer to keep her alive this long, a world in a perfect position in space, and so much more. What an ingrate!

I wrote:

//They just haven't yet figured out exactly what it is.//

You respond:

//Similar to Darwinian Evolution of the Gaps, wishful thinking and hoping that maybe perhaps possibly scientists think that some day, evidence will be found//

No "wishful thinking" here. That's what you do. And there is no such thing as "evolution of the gaps". You're thinking of "God of the gaps". And I have no doubt you hope scientists don't find any evidence because that would remove one of the few refuges you have left for you to to shoehorn your god into.

Yes, it is indeed wishful thinking and Evolution of the Gaps (or Science of the Gaps, if you will). Not only Darwin, but evolutionists through the years have freely admitted that they do not have evidence to support their views, but believe things anyway. George Wald and others have explicitly stated that they believe things that are impossible to science.

The other statements are more prejudical conjecture and a bigoted tantrum. Seems to me that her epistemology is fundamentally flawed.

//that ain’t science, girlfriend, that’s blind faith.//

No, "blind faith" is exactly what you have. Because aren't you proud to say you have faith?

Back to the "I know you are, but what am I?"-style approach. The blind faith has already been discussed.

//We’re “knuckleheads” for denying something that scientists admit has no evidence other than something that is occasionally inferred?//

They DO have evidence! They can calculate the mass that's out there and the amount of gravity! They don't match up! So SOMETHING is missing! They just don't know what yet! Just like how they knew there was a Higgs Boson particle before they actually discovered it. This isn't mumbo jumbo and making guesses. Try to keep up here.

Don't stamp your foot at me, missy! Comparing the over-hyped Higgs Boson particle to dark matter is a bit of a reach, and also a distraction from the faith-based pronouncements of evolutionists. Try to keep up here.

And I love how you bring Bible quotes into a discussion on science. Hard to argue when you have evidence like that on your side.

The Bible was not being presented as scientific evidence. She presupposes atheism and denies God, but also pretends on that Page that there is nothing true in the Bible. That is absurd even on the surface, but her epistemology demands rescuing devices — even if they are simple assertions and contradictions.

Taking it further, atheism is irrational and incoherent. It lacks the necessary preconditions of intelligibility that are found in the biblical worldview — beginning with creation. There is no evidence for atheism, but only metaphysical machinations. There has never been any archaeological or historical claim in the Bible that has been refuted by actual evidence. Nor have other matters about science, but atheistic presuppositions require interpreting observable evidence against God's Word; can't allow a theist to be right about anything, now, can we?

So much for being "eviscerated"!

Oops, I did it again. Kindly gather your entrails as you exit. But go ahead and leave your presuppositions and epistemology in the trash. I know it's too much to ask, but you need to stop unrighteously suppressing the truth about the God that you know exists. From there, humble yourself and repent. You need to make Jesus Christ your salvation. The alternative is pure Hell.

This is the most time I have spent on this hatetheist and I intend to avoid such fireworks and probable time wasting in the future. Perhaps others will learn from this. By the way, here is an annotated screenshot of the diatribe.



March 7, 2020

Atheistic Religious Jihad in New York

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

When I have time and my circumstances allow, I want to respond to some material about why Americans do not want an atheist as President. Briefly, atheists lie. A lot. They not only do it overtly, but through blatant misrepresentation.


The anti-Christian FFRF is defending their religion, and especially the dogma of Darwinism, by attacking a timorous school district in New York.

Perhaps this is to cover up the fact that while they profess to profess reason and tolerance, they are dreadful at utilizing either. This link is one of many possible sources. There you will notice little or no discernable logic, including a prairie schooner-full of straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, baseless assertions, hasty generalizations, and ridicule. Why do they act like ridicule will make atheism and Darwinism less false? That makes sense on their world, old son.

Dan Barker is from the Freedom from Religion Foundation and acts like he's Canis Major. He claims to be a former Christian but demonstrates little knowledge of actual theology and history. While he likes to sell his books, he gets on the prod when Godless is cited at a scholarly debate (see this video link at the 24 minute mark). He spreads falsehoods about the origin of Christianity which have been refuted by accurate sources, and not those that utilize citation of citation of citation without source material. A gifted storyteller, but his bigotry and misrepresentations can be clearly seen in the video linked above as well as in this article. I lack reasons to respect him.

I have concluded long ago that ninety-nine percent of atheists give the rest a bad name, and that activist anti-Christian groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation are weasels who hate God and persecute Christians. Ironically and despite the protestations of bigoted or misinformed atheists, it is a fact that atheism is a religion. They work to have their religion (often in the disguise of Secular Humanism) to be the religion of the land. Why do you think so many atheists are politically on the far left? If I knew what a "bottom dollar" was and had one, I'd bet that they would not support Question Evolution Day — especially the parts about freedom of speech and thought.

A cornerstone of atheism is the mythology of evolution, and they fiercely protect their dogma. This article was inspired by an article on an Intelligent Design website. As a biblical creationist, I am appreciative of how the ID movement shows scientific reasons to reject fish-to-fool evolution. Creationists use arguments showing intelligent design and irreducible, specified complexity. However, the movement itself is too limited and does not proclaim the Creator as revealed in the Bible. Even so, it reveals the blatant dishonesty of the FFRF and their blatant bullying. And they wonder why people don't trust atheists?
The bullies and censors at the Freedom from Religion Foundation have scored a point, and they are crowing about it. A biology teacher at Holland Patent High School, in Upstate New York, informed students that “evolution only goes so far.” This produced a threatening outcry from the atheist group — blasphemy against Darwin! —  that acknowledging that there is “controversy about evolution is fraught with legal peril.” The school district replied with a letter that seemed to buckle to and accept this bizarre objection.
I encourage you to read the rest of this article. You can do that by following the link to "Blasphemy Against Darwin in New York State! Atheist Group Intimidates School District". Seeing as the events are in New York, it is not all that surprising the timorous school district did not seek assistance from the American Center for Law and Justice, who have been successful in fighting back



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!


 

Subscribe in a reader