Stormbringer's Thunder

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Professing atheists riding the owlhoot trail are frequently claiming to be purveyors of "science" and "reason", but often displaying an inability to understand either. People with even a rudimentary understanding of logic can see their posturing for what it is. ( Even after having their fallacies pointed out , some t inhorns deny that there is anything wrong with their Mighty Atheist Intellects™ by denying having made the fallacies, or even trying to cover up by commit ting more . Some of us don't cotton to wasting our time on them .) One of their many fallacies atheists use is over-generalization, such as saying that the recent ISIS terrorist attacks on Paris are a reason to outlaw all religion . Oh, please. There are Christians who get into battles of trying to out-evidence the other side, but those of us who use presuppositional apologetics take a different approach. One reason atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, Deists, peop

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen (Edited 11-06-2015) I'm speaking in generalities. There are theistic evolutionists who are not actively trying to troll the Web and recruit Bible believers away from their faith. Also, there are yet a few professing atheists who really don't care what the rest of us believe, and want to go on about their business.  A foundation for the religion of atheism is evolution, which gives many professing atheists a "scientific" explanation for the origin and development of life. Naturally, atheists attack Christians because it's their nature to do so (John 8:44, Luke 6:22, 2 Timothy 3:12). But they hate creationists even more, because creation wrecks their evolutionary foundation. When it comes to biblical ("young Earth") creation, they ride in at full gallop with guns blazing, because evolution requires time — a lot of it — and biblical creation science shows not only the flaws in evolution, but gives evidence for a recent crea

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A quote that is misattributed to Voltaire reads, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." According to Evelyn Beatrice Hall , this was Voltaire's attitude toward material by Claude Adrien Helvétius. Voltaire is incorrectly called an atheist. He was actually a Deist who detested many religious dogmas, and believed in freedoms of religion and expression . The attitude of disapproving of what is said but defending the right to say it is sadly lacking in modern society; people screaming for "tolerance" are extremely intolerant. Even a cursory search will show that there is intense persecution of Christians , especially in countries run by atheists and Mohammedans. And it's only beginning . Edit: Around the time that I published this article, "Stand Up for the Truth" had a segment on persecution. To hear that, click on " Is Christian Persecution Coming to America? " It&

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is not only very helpful to learn about informal logical fallacies, but can be fun. At least, they are for me. Prove it! Not only does this help you in discussions so you can see if some owlhoot is building an argument with faulty reasoning, but helps you check your own arguments so you can present present them as accurately as possible. Back up your assertions! The more I learn about fallacies, the more I see that not only can many of them get combined and overlap (a comment can a contain complex question, an ad hominem  and a genetic fallacy all at the same time, for example). Are you afraid to back up your claims, or just too stupid to cite something from a real source and not from creatard sites? More than that, I keep seeing additional "fallacies" that appear to be simply made up. Someone accused me of committing a fallacy because I pointed out his own fallacies, therefore, I was "negated" and he was free to continue buil

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One of the main problems that atheists have is prejudicial conjecture. That is, they get all het up, thinking they know about something and spouting off their uninformed opinions while also trying to influence the views of others. When it comes to the Bible, many atheists not only resort to prejudicial conjecture, but many other logical fallacies including the straw man. Sorry, Cupcake, but we don't have to defend something we don't hold to or didn't say. This includes quote-mined material from the Bible.  Made at Atom Smasher Numerous fallacies can be rounded up in regards to creation science. They will misrepresent creationists, call us liars (their "proof" is essentially based on "because I said so repeatedly", but actually makes them the liars because of no real evidence), appeal to motive, poisoning the well, unfounded accusations, loaded terminology and a whole lot more. With just a little learning about informal

The fallacy of " Special Pleading " is a form of "Moving the Goalposts" by ignoring important information, changing criteria to bolster one's position, appealing to emotions, and similar tactics. Christians and creationists have to deal with this quite a bit. F'rinstance, when I said that Bill Nye used bad science and logical fallacies when debating Ken Ham, I produced abundant supporting evidence. A critic cried, "...I have NOT studied it in detail. However, I note that it FAILS to quote anything Nye actually said at the debate with Ken Ham VERBATIM..." That's a clear example of moving the goalposts and special pleading (as well as the brilliant logical procedure of arguing from something not studied). Owlhoots like this tend to defend their logical fallacies with more fallacies, such as appeal to motive . So, how about Pluto, the ninth planet of the solar system. Oh, wait. It was disqualified, and with apparently good reasons . People d

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 t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  In a previous "Logic Lesson", I touched on the Argument from Silence , but I forgot that I did it! Diddly dur hay. Anyway, this is a more complete treatment. Arguments from silence, like other fallacies, have some clear-cut examples that are easily identifiable. The basic form is that if someone does not answer a question or give a response, it is taken as confirmation that the other person is right. Unfortunately, I do not have screenshots of one of my favorite examples. An atheopath on Twitter was attacking me for something or other, and I had better things to do (such as watching television). When I came back to Twitter, I realized that I had lost a "debate". The guy had been firing of questions and comments. Because he did not get responses from me, he declared victory for himself — I lost a debate that I did not know I had! Here is another one. It was posted in a forum, and I found out that it was e-mailed to me from a spammer-stal

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen  The simple answer to the question of why atheists cannot find God is that they really do not want to find him. However, that raises several other questions and issues. Many times, atheists claim to have rejected belief in God because of reason (as if theists somehow were automatically irrational because of their beliefs, which is a logical fallacy right there, and many atheists frequently demonstrate a grasp of basic logic). If they had used some of the logic they claim to like, they would be confronted with some problems that they cannot escape.  Atheists cannot account for logic itself , and they are unable to answer the question of existence . Although some think that evolution solves some problems and helps them become intellectually fulfilled, evolution is a failure. Materialists have attempted to scientifically locate a place for free will and the soul in the brain , and they try but fail to account for morality through evolution . The truth is tha

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Because humans are complicated beings, we respond to a number of different stimuli. Some are at very basic reflex and chemistry levels, such as "fight or flight". At the other end of the spectrum, we can intelligently consider various pieces of information and arrive at reasonable conclusions. Somewhere in the middle is the complication of emotions. Although they can respond to logic when recognized and a decision is made to bring them under control, they often arise unbidden. People have been "thinking" through their emotions for a very long time; I believe it is worse now than it used to be. There are people who want to manipulate others through emotions (whether deliberately or intentionally) , and we need to be on guard against such tactics. That is one reason I wrote a series about common logical fallacies . By recognizing fallacies and the way so many are based on appeals to emotions , we are less likely to fall for tricks, and can