Showing posts with label dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dawkins. Show all posts

October 8, 2019

More Atheistic Propaganda from Dawkins

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Seems that Dr. Clinton Richard Dawkins got himself another atheopathy book on the market, which got the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod. Rusty Swingset ordered overtime at the propaganda mill with everybody on standby, and he went with another publisher.


Richard Dawkins has a new book of the same old propaganda for an incoherent worldview. He inadvertently proves God right again.
Left image credit: Wikimedia Commons / David Shankbone (CC by 3.0)
Right image credit: Imgflip and many other places on teh interweb
In a podcast of The Briefing by Dr. Richard Albert Mohler, we learned that Dawkins is inadvertently proving God right again (Romans 1:18-23). If you study on it a spell, you'll see that words like should, ought, and the like imply ethical and moral claims. According to atheism and evolutionism, we are just rearranged pond slime reacting to our chemical impulses. He has no right to criticize Christians or creationists because, in his fundamentally flawed worldview, we are born this way and cannot help it.

Actually, his rants do not contain valid logic. He tacitly admits God exists and simply gives excuses for hating God, who gave him life. Science is impossible without God, and so is logic. When atheists and evolutionists make moral claims, they are admitting that their atheistic worldview is irrational and incoherent, and are standing on the biblical worldview!

Ironically, his disciples use fallacious arguments against "religious" people making money, but this sidewinder is pulling in the grotzits from bad atheism. It pays to confirm biases and reinforce bigotry,  right, Dick?

I have a couple of things for you. First an article, "More of Dawkins’ same old tired rhetoric: Review of Outgrowing God by Richard Dawkins" from Matthew Cserhati at Creation Ministries International. Next, the podcast that inspired this article. You can read the transcript, listen online, or download the MP3. Click on The Briefing, Monday, October 7, 2019. The second and third segments are what we're looking for.

July 24, 2017

Clinton Richard Dawkins "Deplatformed" in Berkeley

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the high priests of atheism is C. Richard Dawkins. (His tinhorn fans consider themselves "New Atheists", but the only thing "new" about them is their extreme hatred and intolerance, dishonesty, lack of thinking skills, redefining "reason" and "rational" to mean "naturalist" and "atheist", and a passel of other flaws that make them detestable to the rest of the American population. I reckon professing atheists of yore would be embarrassed by this lot.) Atheopaths rally behind Dawkins since he gives a façade of intellectualism, although atheism cannot withstand true logic. To put it another way, he's considered brilliant by people who already hate God and are digging up excuses to justify their rebellion against their Creator. Dawkins is angry, hypocritical, and mean-spirited in general, but is surprised that people do not like him. In the formerly great Britain, other scientists also have a dim view of him. That should tell him something.


Dawkins disinvited Berkeley free speech
Background image of shattering atheist symbol courtesy of Why?Outreach
Atheists and leftists are champions of free speech — but only as long as it's their kind of speech, as is readily apparent. Free speech was a big deal at University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s, but they have protested appearances by people who say things they dislike — lately, they have done this with violence. The reason? They reject the content as well as the people that oppose leftist views. Colleges used to be places that taught people how to think, which includes dealing with opposing views. Now they have safe zones so they can be protected from challenges and concepts they find threatening, poor snowflake darlings.

Ride with me on a side trail for a spell. Way back when, I visited a Ku Klux Klan rally in a small town near Kalamazoo, Michigan. The white supremacists were well-mannered, and the protesters were borderline violent. I wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, defending their right to free speech, even though I despise what they promote. Someone responded to my letter and justified the juvenile actions of the protesters, saying, "Do you know what they teach?" Yes, yes I do. He conveniently missed the point of what I was saying: we can't shut them down because we don't like them, and we could be next.

Now, let's get back to the Dr. Dawkins subject. He was invited to speak in Berkeley, but not by the college itself. He was going to be making chin music on atheism and his "excellent new book on science". (The title, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Realist, implies philosophy and metaphysics more than actual science, but I digress.) He was "deplatformed" (did that word even exist five years ago?) from speaking because he said harsh things about Islam. Interesting how "progressives" adore homosexuality as well as Islam, but that religion not only rejects homosexuality, with some adherents actively killing them. Leftists have a dilemma, don't they? The leftists didn't check to see if Dawkins spoke the truth, did they?

Listen, I don't cotton to Dawkins. I think he is an irrational, hateful sidewinder that lies about God and Christians under the nebulous word "religion". He needs to humble himself and repent before the God he claims does not exist, as should his followers. I also believe he should have been allowed to speak. The winds of political correctness can shift quickly. While atheists are notorious for suppressing the free speech of creationists and other Christians, that does not justify my taking a "serves you right" approach. And there may still be a few intelligent atheists who would join with others in protecting such rights against governmental interference and obstruction by confused people who follow trends. I'm not saying that everyone should give everyone a platform in every circumstance when people want to present their views. In a public setting where free speech was promoted in the past, though, denying Dawkins the opportunity to speechify is hypocritical.

Here are some articles that I thought you might like. Note: In no wise do I approve of the full contents of each article.

December 14, 2014

Conflation and the War Between Science and Religion

The idea that there's a war between "science" and "religion" was laid to rest. But through the magic of conflation and dishonesty, atheists have brought that zombie back. Not so fast, we're on to your tricks!

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Back when I was giving talks on creation science, I used what has become a very popular quote by an atheist:
‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. 
— G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.
The way I study on it, this quote would have been mostly forgotten if biblical creationists hadn't lassoed it and kept repeating it.

"Why do you people keep repeating it, Cowboy Bob?"

Thanks for asking. We repeat it because it's right. Vituperative and biased, but right. This was back in 1979. Evolutionists and atheists have been doing a bait 'n' switch for a long time by conflating (or equivocating, even equating, almost the same thing) the words science with evolution. Particles-to-people evolution is a belief system about the distant past where people attempt to use scientific methods, principles, discoveries and so on to justify an evolutionary worldview. The belief in evolution is the starting point for interpreting data.

Likewise, creation science is a belief system about the distant past where people attempt to use scientific methods, principles, discoveries and so on to justify a creationist worldview. Our belief in the biblical account of creation is our starting point for interpreting data. Atheists often ridicule Christians because our foundation is different from theirs — and theirs is "right" because they said so. But we all have the same data, the same facts — there is no stacking up their facts against our facts. In fact, a fact is a fact. It's the interpretation of facts that cause the disagreements.

Evolutionists and atheists hate this truth with a passion: Creation and evolution are equally religious and equally scientific. You see, everyone has an ultimate starting point — a worldview and presuppositions. We interpret information through them. Some make science into a kind of religion (Scientism), and there is no reality that cannot be determined scientifically, This worldview is self-refuting. God's Word is the basis of the Christian's worldview (or it should be!), and the Bible is self-affirming.

Let's ride down this trail a bit more.

Atheists have insisted for a long time that there is a war between "science" and "religion". That is the opposite of the truth. Creationists put this idea six feet under long ago by pointing out that there are many creationist scientists, and there is no conflict between their faith and real science.


But atheists are trying to raise zombies. What this "war" rhetoric really means for them is that there is a war between evolution and biblical creation.Evolution and creation are historical (sometimes called origins) science, and then there is operational science, which applies to real life.

In the quote by Bozarth, he conflated "science" with "evolution" (atheists often get sneaky and also conflate "reason" with "atheism"; if you're not an atheist, you don't use reason and logic — "logic vs. creationism", for instance). Other heroes of unbelief also do this, and it is false. You do not need to believe in evolution to be a good scientist. F'rinstance, there are people working together literally doing rocket science, some are creationists, some are evolutionists, and their views of origins have no bearing on their ability to do science work. This happens in other fields as well.

However, many anti-creationists have been denying that there is a difference between historical and operational sciences:


Spot the zombie? The "war between science and religion" concept was buried by biblical creationists, but atheists dug it up and reanimated it by conflating "evolution" with "science". Again, there is a war between the truth (biblical creation science) and the lie (evolution and billions of years), but no war between science and religion/faith. Watch for this deception, it's quite common.

Evolution is a cornerstone for the religion of atheism. Clinton R. Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". Since evolution is scientifically and logically a pile of meadow muffins, it's no surprise that atheists play so many disingenuous word games and use logical fallacies to "protect science" (meaning, guard evolution from scrutiny).

It's sad that many Christians do not recognize the importance of our foundations in Genesis. Some atheists understand it far better than many Christians! In fact, C. Richard Dawkins states it clearly:
I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen.

— Richard Dawkins interviewed by Richard Conder on Revelation TV, Feb 2011

One of the biggest barriers for people to come to faith in Christ is evolution. When you have Christians that are reluctant to stand for the truth, are unable to answer questions about it, and also fall for the devious tricks from atheists (including conflation), there are problems. Atheists and evolutionists utterly despise those of us who take an uncompromising stance on our biblical foundations. Creation science ministries not only show evidence for creation and refute evolution, but also seek to equip Christians to present the gospel — these ministries are a resource. Are we getting ridiculed, lied about, mocked, libeled and so on? Yup. Shall we compromise? Not hardly.






May 22, 2014

The Danger of Atheists in Power

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are two videos at the end of this article that I urge you to watch.

For years, secularists have been actively protecting evolution from serious scrutiny; people are not educated in thinking logically and examining the evidence. (This can be seen and heard from many modern atheists who claim to use "reason", but are unable to do so.) Instead, they are told what to think and not how to think. Evolution is a cornerstone of atheism and other secularist religions. Biblical creationists not only show the flaws in evolution, but also stand on the authority of God's Word instead of making idols out of scientists. In fact, many secularists have elevated science itself to a kind of deity status. 

I made this in May 2010, and I'm pleased to see that it has been around. Sometimes, with variations.
The new atheo-fascists are capitalizing on these things. Since people "think" with their emotions rather than utilizing the minds that God gave them, they fall prey to manipulative tactics. Many of these are interrelated:
  • Ridicule. Discrimination and persecution often begin here. It can be the "appeal to ridicule" fallacy ("Do you realize what people will think if they found out that you believe in God?"), or outright mockery. Notice how this is extensive on social media, and Facebook is known for shutting down Christians and political Conservatives.
  • Confusion. Attacking people with a barrage of statements, leading questions and outright nonsense, then affirming that atheism uses "reason".
  • Marginalization. Using misrepresentation and straw men (which can be seen in the appeal to ridicule fallacy mentioned above), selective citing or simply brushing someone off as unimportant because of their worldview (often using the "genetic fallacy" and "poisoning the well"). This is different from brushing something or someone off because you have concluded that they are wasting your time, however.
  • Trolling. Atheopaths will go on a jihad to attack Christians and creationists all over the Web instead of allowing freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Silence through intimidation.
  • Intimidation, bullying and stalking. The aforementioned trolls use ridicule and confusion to attempt to intimidate people (but they become furious when people stand up to them and show their fallacies), and some resort to stalking.
  • Nit-picking. Militant atheists and fundamentalist evolutionists will pick on an article's introduction and ignore the substance. Similarly, they will find something that is not documented and complain about that (again, ignoring the main part of an article).
  • Labeling. People will use loaded terminology (including nonsensical and dishonest words like "homophobe" and "anti-science"). People like Richard Dawkins and his followers will call "religion" a "virus", and people who teach the Bible to their children are "child abusers". "Religion is dangerous" is a fallacious generalization. Since so many people lack critical thinking skills, they simply accept the emotive terminology they receive rather than risk being politically incorrect by challenging it.
  • Concentration and repetition. This is a propaganda technique where if something is repeated enough, people will eventually believe it (whether it is true or not).
  • Legislation and activism. Militant atheists are attempting to remove the rights of Christians, as is seen in the news on a frequent basis. Teaching creation science is becoming illegal in Britain.
  • Opposition. Atheo-fascists attack Bible-believing Christians on issues of abortion, homosexual "marriage" and others. Ironically, they act like it is some kind of moral imperative to oppose us on those issues as well as evolution, yet they do not have a consistent moral standard! Note that there are very few who hold to politically conservative viewpoints.
  • Global warming (or "climate change). They are in agreement with the environmental extremists regarding anthropomorphic global warming. Those of us who disagree with this, as well as with evolutionism, are "science deniers".

  • Violence. We know what happens when atheists get political power. On a less obvious level, vandalism of Christian places is increasing, and yes, violence by atheists is also increasing. Note that most atheists deny this, saying that atheism had nothing to do with killing. It is another expression of hatred for God and his followers.

Militant atheopaths are ridiculing, marginalizing at finding various ways to attack Christians. We need to be aware of the threat and arm ourselves with our own activism, prayer, knowledge of Scripture, true science and more. We need to use our rights to speak out and resist them instead of rolling over and letting it happen. If we don't use our rights, we may very well lose them.

Please watch the videos:






April 11, 2014

"Unbelievers" and Poison


Clinton R. Dawkins and Larry Krauss are leading militant atheists on another crusade. They have a new movie called Unbelievers. Perhaps they have to step up their efforts in spreading disinformation and stirring up emotions against that shadowy bogey man called "religion" and all its evils because they know that atheism is declining globally. Perhaps they're still upset because atheists do not score well in being liked and trusted. Perhaps the money is not rolling in as much as it used to be.

Let's back up. Atheists complain that they're not liked. Why is that? Well, from this report about the movie from a source that I trust, it's the same kind of nonsense that they inflict on people all the time anyway. I am convinced that they are not disliked because they're atheists so much as because they're obnoxious. What do they do?

  • Appeal to emotion. After all, people "think" with their emotions, and militant atheopaths manipulate people that way.
  • Misrepresentation. A straw man can fool sheeple, and modern militant atheists have warehouses full of them, ready to deploy at a moment's notice.
  • Prejudicial conjecture. Telling stories that are untrue as well as uninformed so they can further manipulate people. "Dawkins and Krauss said so, and I believe them!"
  • Appeal to authority and double standards. When people have the unmitigated gall to question evolution, some of the Darwine drinkers will tell us that we have no business doing so because we do not have "qualifications". Yet they will listen to a theoretical physicist and a biologist as qualified authorities on matters of religion and how to run the world under the wisdom of militant, irrational atheism.
  • Other Logical fallacies. Using bad thinking like conflation, ad hominems, the aforementioned straw man and more.
  • Blatant inconsistencies. Telling people to "question everything", then atheopath drones go out and ridicule people who dare to question evolution, a foundation of the atheist religion.
  • Illegitimate activism. They pretend to be the persecuted victims and want their followers to rise up and stamp out "religion". Well, it's been tried for a long, long time. And even if it did happen, who would be building schools and hospitals? Certainly not the Dawkins Foundation.
  • Antipathy. These bullies loathe anyone who shows that atheism is inconsistent, arbitrary and irrational. And I have yet to encounter an atheist that will not lie to, and about, me or other creationists.

Deceptive, manipulative and emotionally provocative things like this will only harm the already dreadful image that atheists have. They think they are highly intellectual, and then refer to reviews like this one from Answers in Genesis as "Anti-science bigotry", and claiming that "Ham and Purdom pretend to 'know' that it is all rubbish". Yeah, who is really the bigot, Poindexter? Such misrepresentation — no, let's lay it on the line — such a lie only illustrates the foolishness of the writer. Especially since Ham wasn't an author of the review.

Anyone acquainted with logic and epistemology can easily see that atheism is incoherent. It is full of arbitrary assertions (another logical fallacy) and they do not have a consistent moral foundation. Pay attention and you'll see what I mean. But don't correct them (Proverbs 9.8), they tend to justify their fallacies with more fallacies and dishonesty.

Thank God atheism and that negativity is dying. We can hope and pray that the emotionalism and flaming dishonesty of Unbelievers will not poison too many minds. Humanity's salvation cannot come through rejecting God. It can only come through Jesus Christ.

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).

August 13, 2013

The "Hitler was a Christian" Slander

“What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right?
I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” 
—Richard Dawkins

Sounds just like many modern atheists today. This quote is from Table Talk.
For some reason, many atheists want to "give" Adolph Hitler to Christianity. "Hitler was a Christian!", they gloat. But that is the opposite of the truth.

"He said he was a Christian, Cowboy Bob!"

Ummm...yeah. How often do you believe politicians, especially those that have murdered millions of people and were obvious maniacs? Get that? He was a politician, striving for power. Also, who was Jesus to him, what was God, what was Christianity to him? The same problem exists with many atheists today — they redefine the terms to suit their own ends.

I have some ideas on why Christophobes try to pretend that Hitler was a Christian. First, to make the atrocities of the greatest mass murderers of history, the atheists Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot and so on, seem — well, not so bad, really. Second, it's one of the weird stretches of atheistic logic that I've encountered: "Hitler was a Christian, so Christianity is bad, so there is no God!" No, not in those words, but pretty doggone close. Third, it's motivated by hate, and they'll find any excuse, no matter how stupid and easily disproved, to say something bad about Christians.


Here are some articles for your perusal. Take a special look at the dishonest comments by Fergus at the bottom of the article, and how he's soundly trounced at "Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions — The Darwin–Hitler connection".

Next, "Hitler Was Not a Christian: Refutation of Atheist Slander".

After that, "Was Hitler a Christian?"

Then you can read "Did Hitler Rewrite the Bible?"

New: "The 'Hitler was a Christian' Mythos.

If you have time for something even longer, go to "From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist - Responding to Richard Dawkins on the Issue of Atheism, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Communism and Nazism"

You really should bookmark this page and share it with those people who show their ignorance and bigotry by saying that Hitler was a Christian.

We also have a video to see, and it has a great challenge to fundamentalist atheists:

And for those who think this is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...you're dead wrong:

July 20, 2013

Atheism, Satanism and Dawkins

It is not an easy religion to adopt in a society ruled so long by Puritan ethics. There is no false altruism or mandatory love-thy-neighbor concept in this religion. Satanism is a blatantly selfish, brutal philosophy. It is based on the belief that human beings are inherently selfish, violent creatures, that life is a Darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest, that only the strong survive and the earth will be ruled by those who fight to win the ceaseless competition that exists in all jungles - including those of urbanized society. Abhor this brutal outlook if you will; it is based, as it has been for centuries, on real conditions that exist in the world we inhabit rather than the mystical lands of milk and honey depicted in the Christian Bible.
— Burton H Wolfe, Second Introduction to The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey

A Satanist practices the motto, "If a man smite thee on one cheek, smash him on the other!" Let no wrong go unredressed.

Satanism encourages its followers to indulge in their natural desires. Only by doing so can you be a completely satisfied person with no frustrations which can be harmful to yourself and others around you. Therefore, the most simplified description of the Satanic belief is: indulgence instead of abstinence.
— Anton LaVey

"Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you."
. . .
“Mock them, ridicule them in public, don’t fall for the convention that we’re far to polite to talk about religion,” a frustrated Dawkins continued, “Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe, which need to be substantiated.  They should be challenged and ridiculed with contempt.”

— Clinton Richard Dawkins on two different occasions





Previously, I have written about common elements between atheism and Satanism. I must specify again that this is regarding LaVey's Satanism, and not the idiots who sacrifice helpless animals (or even humans) to Satan. LaVey did not believe that Satan was an actual being. His Satanism emphasized self-gratification. Indeed, Aleister Crowley "Great Beast 666" restated an old expression as, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". (Yes, he was a Satanist of sorts: "It seems I possessed a theology of my own, which was to all intents and purposes, Christianity.  My Satanism did not interfere with it at all.") Since they are essentially hedonists, is there any doubt that a Satanist will deceive in order to attain his own ends?

Anton LaVey attempted to make Satanism respectable and intellectual, and drew heavily from atheist Ayn Rand. Atheists are famous for their pseudo-intellectual posturing and sneering that they are somehow more intelligent than "theists". But while proclaiming to believe in "reason", they use abundant logical fallacies, childish name-calling, profanities, and outright lies in order to achieve their own ends. Sexual harassment is a problem in the atheist "community", which would not be surprising from a Satanist seeking his own pleasure.

In the quote at the beginning of this article, Burton Wolfe indulged in prejudicial conjecture (misleading assertions without knowledge or support) so he could affirm Satanism and misrepresent what the Bible teaches. Richard Dawkins does this kind of thing, and Dawkinsites repeat his ex cathedra pronouncements without actually thinking about them. Indeed, he uses logical fallacies and even demonstrates his own lack of knowledge about the nature of science in his efforts to destroy Christianity. It is readily apparent in his blatant hypocrisy cited earlier.

"Why would anyone want to destroy Christianity, Cowboy Bob?"

The oldest lies came from the beginning of creation. First, "Did God really say..." followed by a distortion of what God said. Then, "You shall be like God" (Genesis 3.1,5).


Modified from morgueFile/luisrock62
The sin of Lucifer was pride. Satanists reject God and embrace their selfish desires through pride. Atheists pretend that God does not exist, and bow down to "reason" and "science", using self-serving redefinitions of those words and of "reality" as well. For that matter, many liberal "Christians" weasel their way out of believing what the Bible says so that they can do what they will. People have been blinded by the lies of Satan (2 Cor. 4.4), and want to become their own gods. Thinking they're clever, they fall for the lies of the Great Deceiver. No wonder they wish to destroy the truth.

March 27, 2013

Tiny Video: An Evolutionist Easter Dance


Starring Richard Dawkins, Sam "Ben Stiller" Harris, Charles Darwin, and everybody's hero, Piltodown Superman!

December 11, 2012

Dismantling a Dawkins Disciple

An angry, uninformed atheopath took exception to The Question Evolution Project making sport of an atheist pope who ridicules the beliefs of others. Here is the "meme" that upset him:


Atheists tend to humiliate themselves by making accusations when they don't know what they're talking about.

This is what he said, and the provocative reply (with a bonus troll remark just above his):



Since some of us are not fond of bullies, trolls and obstreperous twits, it was kicked up a notch:



The "previous comment" referenced there was a link to an article with proof that many professional atheists do believe that everything came from nothing.

He did not like the way the game was going, and proceeded to fuss more:



Note the foolish attempt at ridicule by bringing up Jesus in an attempt to force us to a standard that he himself does not believe (typical hypocrisy of atheists), and then calling TQEP "liar". It's amazing how people love their hero but don't know much about what has been said or written. Here is proof in his own words that Richard Dawkins believes that life may have come from outer space:



Well, since some people are too lazy to do their own work (typical of atheopaths like the one that commented), here is something about the universe coming from nothing to make them gag.

First, In the afterward to A Universe from Nothing by Krauss:
Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If On the Origin of Species was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see A Universe From Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.
Not good enough? OK. But it does carry the strong implication that Dawkins believes everything came from nothing.

I'll go one better. How about from Dawinks' The Ancestor's Tale, will that help?
The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
For those who are not paying attention: "the universe evolved literally out of nothing". Got that?

"Gosh, Cowboy Bob, why are they so committed to protecting stupid comments from Dawkins?"

Probably because they revere him, even though he is a lousy philosopher. They get their material from him and spew it all over the Internet, especially on sites, forums and Pages that Christians have. Even so, I bet he'd stand by what he said, despite his defenders.

I think that Richard Lewontin set forth a kind of manifesto with this statement:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
They are committed to the horrible, self-refuting position of naturalism because they hate God. The original comment in the "meme" stands.

Oh, and that earlier crack about a stalker? This clown comes around and "likes" hateful, ignorant, arbitrary, illogical and downright stupid remarks (like the ones you saw above). EDIT: He got himself banned, finally.


December 1, 2012

Video: Atheists with ADD

The old question, "Who made God?" is, I believe, childish and shows lack of thought. Some people disagree with me, and choose to answer it.

It is quite fair to ask a question, and then ask for clarification if you do not understand it. But to ask the same exact question twice in the same conference with the same wording? I believe that many atheopaths (especially the unemployed alcoholics) do not want answers, they prefer to challenge and look for opportunities to ridicule. And that is what I think is happening with these repeated questions. But then again, I also suspect that they are autistic. And are doing the bidding of one of their hypocritical "leaders", Richard "Daffy" Dawkins.

Here is a video highlighting members of the "Repeat Silly Questions Even Thought They've Been Answered" club.



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. 

October 18, 2012

Richard Dawkins and Child Abuse

Circulating on Facebook
It's probably time for me to point out again that I know jolly well that there are different kinds of atheists in the world. Some are the "live and let live" types: "You believe, I don't, we can talk about it, or not". I do not check to see if the cashier at Wal-Mart, the mail carrier, the server at the restaurant, the lady in the apartment across the hall or other people are atheists. Unless we're having a conversation about spiritual things.

Then there's the aggressive angry atheist. These are the vicious ones that haunt the Internet and seek out Christians to attack. I doubt that they have jobs or lives; who would hire them or want to be around them?

OK, so I've differentiated. It's the hateful atheists that I encounter the most. They tend to be disciples of Richard "Daffy" Dawkins and other purveyors of bigotry disguised as "reason". His sheeple heard Dawkins tell them to mock "religious" people.

His twisted view of the vague evil phantom of "religion" includes calling the teaching of religion to children "child abuse". The last I knew, people have the right and responsibility to instil their values in their children!

Dawkins even has a propaganda book for kids. Can you imagine if he clearly spelled out evolutionary atheism? In the beginning was nothing, which exploded. Stars, galaxies, planets formed. Eventually, through an unknown mechanism, the impossible happened: Life began by pure chance. It gradually became more complex over huge amounts of time. Eventually, you evolved. You are just a modified blob of protoplasm without purpose, without meaning and when you die, there is no final judgment or loving arms of the Savior. You're just worm food.

The atheist "message of hope", in its honest form, is true child abuse.

And this atheo-fascist wants creation science teaching outlawed in Britain. (So much for academic freedom, and freedom of thought.)



But it's getting more fun! Naturally, some people want creationism banned here, and religious education, and so forth. So often, things that happen in European socialist countries are a testing ground or a forerunner for what happens in America.

Parents in Germany wanted to homeschool their kids. Der state says nein, verboten! The state took away the children from the parents. Matt Slick of CARM has this to say:


 

What is coming next? Those of us who are not statists, and who believe in traditional Judeo-Christian values are going to fight it, whatever evil comes our way (that's one reason Socialist-In-Chief, B. Hussein Obama is losing his job in November). The good news for Christians is that the ultimate victory is ours!


July 7, 2012

Atheist Hypocrisy and the "Jesus Myth"

Pope Richard Dawkins leads the charge against creationists, and his non-thinking disciples copy-n-paste his obstreperous rhetoric in an effort to appear just as wise as him. Unfortunately, he does not appear wise, and their lazy efforts to attack creationists with bad parroting serve to humiliate the lot of them even further. In this case, he does/does not believe in the "Jesus Myth" nonsense. Of course, when the facts do not fit with reality, emotional attacks must suffice for misotheists.
Creationists are certainly accustomed to being dismissed as a crackpot fringe that holds a minority position—especially in the community of science, where indeed the vast majority of scientists argue for some form of evolution. We are also accustomed to being ridiculed by popularist demagogues like Richard Dawkins. Dawkins professes to find himself highly disturbed that anyone at all accepts young earth or creationist views, and is even more despairing that despite years of evolutionary indoctrination in our schools, creationism just doesn’t seem to be going away. Recently, at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, Dawkins was quoted as saying:
Sorry, Sigmund, you'll have to click here to finish reading "Dawkins' Ironic Hypocrisy".

Subscribe in a reader