Showing posts with label libel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libel. Show all posts

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"'re dead wrong:

February 8, 2013

Atheist "Logic" and "Morality" at (ir) RationalWiki

RationalWiki, Defamation, Fools, Libel, Libelous, (ir)RationalWiki

Some atheopaths are amazed that I am not impressed by their dazzling intellects. After all, they bill themselves as the intellectual elite, as if merely declaring themselves to be atheists magically gives them superior minds.

Then they subject us to pooling of ignorance sites like (empty) and (ir) RationalWiki. Do not want.

Especially the latter. It is a den of foolish excuses to disbelieve in God and hate the Bible, with lots and lots of libel and defamation. They are liars without standards. "Good without God"? oh, please! If they actually were rational and had standards instead of letting any loser write any libelous nonsense, they might actually be worthy of respect. Ain't happening, Zeke. Go have another drink.

Here is an example. They libeled the PPSIMMONS ministry, showing themselves to be uninformed fools, as this video illustrates:

If I was an atheist, I'd be embarrassed by the badly misnamed "RationalWiki". We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you, Poindexters. Perhaps I should thank them for the extra traffic.

January 30, 2013

Arrogant Atheist Gets Spanked - Again

Jason managed to give an arrogant atheopath "what for" without much effort. Since the atheopath cried about it in a response, Jason put more effort into a reply to the response. We can clearly see that the atheist is the intellectual inferior here, at "Online Atheists and You, Part 2".

November 26, 2012

Muslims and Nazis

Excellent work! Found on Facebook. Thanks, whoever made this.
The propaganda used by modern Muslims against the Jews is startlingly similar, often identical, to the anti-Jew propaganda of Nazi Germany. The hatred and bigotry is amazing.

Edit: Austrian Mohammedans chant, "Death to Jews!" Losers.

Some of it is childish, too. When they "martyr" themselves in cowardly suicide attacks, or when they get killed when the Israeli military strikes back, they cry for vengeance, as if they were quietly minding their own business and did not start anything. It reminds me of an old joke where a mother hears her child crying in the other room. When she rushes in, one child points to the other and sobs, "He hit me back!"

I am not going to say that the Israelis are pure as the driven snow and never do anything wrong (nor do I approve of their religion). When they do commit crimes, those become front page news and the atrocities of the Palestinians are either buried or ignored altogether.

For the record, again, I believe that Israel has the right to have its land and to protect itself.

November 17, 2012

Atheist Rage

In December 1993, Colin Ferguson began methodically shooting people on the Long Island Railroad. He hated white people and other blacks that he considered "Uncle Toms" [1]. This was before the term "hate crime" was popular. He had lawyers who wanted to offer an absurd defense called "black rage". The concept was that he was a victim of a racist society, and this was going to be offered as an insanity defense [2]. The selfish, self-righteous coward rejected the defense and chose to defend himself. Badly [3, 4].

Earlier today, I posted some comics and pictures on my Facebook account, including something that was made for me. A couple of misotheists decided to take me to task and play the victim card. They went on about how they are hated by society and treated badly by "theists". I cleaned up the language of one comment and presented it here: -

When I showed the first complainant that this and other remarks in his diatribe were faulty, he blocked me. Fine, how about simply not commenting on my page?


I noticed a similarity between what these guys were crying about and the "black rage" nonsense, including the fact that atheism could very well be a form of mental illness [6]. I've seen it in other places too: Atheopaths will attempt to justify their hatred of God [7] and Christians by pretending to be victims of (mostly fictitious and exaggerated) discrimination themselves.

So, they are the least-liked, least-trusted group for no reason, and nonsense like this and this are irrelevant, huh? The fact that atheist regimes are responsible for the most murders in history are also irrelevant [8]? They go on trolling rampages while pretending that they are the smartest ones in the room, that's irrelevant [9]? Not bloody likely.

They are disliked for many reasons, and they bring it on themselves. It is long past time for modern vituperative atheists to on their "all gwowed up" panties and try to build up civilized society instead of tearing it down. No victim cards allowed.

This attacking sycophant spelled his hero's name wrong, it's "Myers", Poindexter.
Fred Meyer wouldn't appreciate the association, I dare say.

August 7, 2011

Illogic Lessons: A Rant

This article will be less cerebral and more "from the heart" as well as the mind. 
While writing and researching my "Logic Lessons" series, I have learned quite a few things. Especially when I am on the receiving end of people who claim to be "thinkers", "rational", "logical" and so forth. Very few have given me anything rational. Instead, they hit me with interesting combinations of logical fallacies that are based entirely on emotion.

Actually, their reactions are based in hate. They do not even know me, but they hate what I am saying and the Savior that I stand for (John 15.18-21). When I promote an article about creation science, I receive personal attacks from strangers on Twitter. Does that sound like a rational response to you? Me, neither. But so what? It's part of the job for which I enlisted. But I'll never understand what they hope to gain by demonizing the person instead of dealing with the concept; that is the stuff of shallow thinking and petty vendettas.

But I wanted to dwell on something else. Several of the reactions contain the same logical fallacies (the ad hominem personal attacks are the most popular). Unfortunately, I see some other fallacies frequently coming from these weak minds:

  • Poisoning the Well
  • Genetic Fallacy
  • Selective Citing
  • Straw Man
  • Red Herring ... mmmm... Red Herring ... with lemon...
These fallacies tend to merge or overlap sometimes, and it gets confusing. Suffice to say that they are all distractions as well as avoidance techniques. Instead of dealing with the material presented in a manner worthy of true scientific or intellectual inquiry, the items are dodged.

One way to avoid dealing with the sources is to say that they are false, or spurious. I believe it's because they don't like the sources (Genetic Fallacy). Let's think about this for a moment.

It's absurd enough to insult me for using them, but they only have emotionally-based insults instead of reasons for disparaging the sources. It seems to me that some people cannot be pleased because I often (but not exclusively) use Christian and Conservative sources. (By the way, I have a reasonable expectation that people can see op-ed pieces for what they are.)

So, this should be taken to its logical conclusion.

The implication is that Christian and Conservative sources are lying. Do you know what, Little Paulie Prejudiced? You are indicating that people who believe in a Holy God who disapproves of lying (Rev. 21.8) are going to deliberately use a tactic that the God they serve hates in their efforts to further his kingdom. Using defamation of character makes you even more contemptible.
In addition, the brush-off claim that the sources are lying is astonishingly stupid. That's right, I said it! Atheist associations would like nothing better than to shut down news organizations that promote a Christian worldview. If the sources were lying, then lawsuits would be flying left and right, and these agencies would be out of business.

Conservatives are used to attacks from Leftists. Even though we have higher standards than Leftists rags like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the mainstream networks, you keep going on about dishonest Conservatives. How dumb can you get? How low can you get, slandering the character of people just because you don't have the guts to even hear or read what they have to say?

Disparaging sources, especially without even looking at them, is cowardly. Saying that they cannot be trusted is libel. (If a source is consistenly biased and unreliable, such as (ir)RationalWiki, that's a bit different.) I had a link to a site showing strong evidence that, despite the efforts of modern atheists to "give" him to us, Adolph Hitler was not a Christian. One coward avoided reading the site because he said it looked "spurious". But far worse, Norman the Paranoid Troll raved, "Currently, he [Stormbringer] is claiming that Hitler was not a christian based on an apologetic site that is manufacturing quotes." (Learn to capitalize according to the rules of the language, Snowflake Boy!) Aside from his hateful, incomprehensible ranting, he did manage to commit outright libel against that site! Hiding your real name won't help if they want to sue you, Snowflake Boy.

Listen up: Nobody cares if you don't like the looks of a site, and your excuses for ignoring what it contains. If you can disprove what is written, by all means, try to do so. However, the site in question is full of references, so you'll have to expend a great deal of effort to discredit it. And then, you'll have to discredit all of the references available. Unless, of course, you go to atheist or Leftist ignorance pools and dip out nonsense that fits your preconceptions. It is folly to keep trying to rewrite history, thereby humiliating yourselves. The rest of us will continue to speak the truth, no matter how much you don't like it, capice?

But keep the slander and libel to yourselves.

Subscribe in a reader