Showing posts sorted by relevance for query another liar for darwin. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query another liar for darwin. Sort by date 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.



November 18, 2019

Climate Change Activists Reject Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

While the majority of climate change activists have little or no knowledge of science and "think" with their emotions, there are scientists involved. Apparently some of them are feeling lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut. They have some blamestorming to do, but they're looking in the wrong direction.

Climate change alarmists are upset because we are not doing enough to save the world. Their own presuppositions and denial of truth are part of their problem.

As I pointed out in "Climate Change and Ignored Truth", secularists have a passel of presuppositions, including materialism, an old earth, evolutionism, and if there is a God, he is not in control. They appeal to emotions, not facts or logic, and trot out pawns like Greta "How Dare You!" Thunberg to throw kerosene on the fire. (Some of us don't take none too kindly to manipulation, you savvy?) We see that their predictions over the years have all failed, and some are so far away that those who made the alarmist claims will all be taking dirt naps before they can be criticized.

When people get all het up, their emotions interfere with their cognitive abilities. I have seen tinhorns who want to quirt folks into submission through ridicule and calling everyone "liars" who disagree with leftist climate change cult's views. I mentioned how these activists are lamenting that people are not doing enough to save the planet. Step back, Sally, and think about it: we've been told many times that the end is near, and we have also been told that it's already too late. So, we give leftists control of our lives, raise taxes, bring on a totalitarian state — and the world's climate will suddenly be changed and we can all sing the "Happy Happy Joy Joy" song? Not hardly!

Atheists and evolutionists pretend that there is scientific illiteracy when biblical creationists deny fish-to-fool evolution, but I lack belief that they complain about the scientific illiteracy exhibed to climate change extremists. Mayhaps it's because they're on the same materialistic team? Asking for a friend.

For that matter, there are people who may be brilliant, but when it comes to evidence for the Bible, creation, and God's existence, their minds turn to buckets of warm waste. While they use logic every day to one extent or another, it's like most logic circuits in their brains were deactivated. This hatred of God is what we read about in Romans 1:18-23; they are unrighteously suppressing the truth.

I keep mentioning how the climate change cult is primarily from leftist politics. But we need to go a bit deeper. You are highly unlikely to find people who believe in the inerrancy, inspiration, and authority of the Bible to get involved in political and cultural positions that are contrary to the Word of God. Ponder that for a spell, pilgrim.

Evidence that indicates the leftist science approaches have serious flaws are ignored or refuted by the equivalent of, "That's not true! You're a liar! I am a god and I consign you to my version of Hell!" Then they label us "science deniers" (which is also hilariously fallacious) for rejecting their cultic views, play the victim card, and then scream into the wind. God is our Creator and has a plan, but materialists deny this and then wonder why they are filled with despair. The atheistic worldview only has despair to offer, and lacks the necessary preconditions of the human experience. When they say that something is right or wrong, they are denying their materialist and Darwinist presuppositions and are standing on the biblical worldview — beginning at creation.
You can do a simple act to help an environmental scientist: offer him or her a shoulder to cry on. In Science Magazine, Timothy A. C. Gordon, Andrew N. Radford, Stephen D. Simpson implored readers, “Grieving environmental scientists need support.” They’re depressed. Why? Humans are not doing enough to save the planet from climate change. Not even Darwin can help them.
. . .
Yes; the loss of ability to think coherently is becoming painfully evident. If they were consistent materialists and Darwinists (which is practically a job requirement in science these days), they would think logically, and figure that Darwin’s theory just says Stuff Happens, so tough luck. Planets come and go; life rises and goes extinct; that’s just the way of things. Nothing is good or bad. It just is.
To read the entire article, click on "Comfort Your Local Dogmatic Scientist".

ADDENDUM: I forgot about Fourth John chapter seven, verse fourteen: "If anyone rejects current man-made climate change views, this is the unpardonable sin and that person is condemned to Hell." Looks like works-based salvation is real after all.


May 5, 2014

Atheism's Faulty Moral Compass and Consequences

— by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The religion of atheism seems to attract a high percentage of deviants because they have no consistent foundation for morality. One way this can be seen is that, when pressed, atheists cannot actually account for morality itself. If you examine the Web, Facebook, Weblogs and so on, you'll find many examples of obscenity and hatred toward God and his people.


The religion of atheism seems to attract a high percentage of deviants because they have no consistent foundation for morality. One way this can be seen is that, when pressed, atheists cannot actually account for morality itself.
US Geological Survey
Although they claim that they can be "good without God", the words and actions of so many Internet atheists belie that claim. This is the opposite of the truth.Their moral compass is situational and based on whatever is expedient at the time. Living in societies that are founded on Christian morality, they are actually borrowing from the Christian worldview when they say that something is right or wrong. There comes a point when God essentially says, "Your will be done", and gives them over to their depraved minds. Atheism is irrational and incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of human experience and intelligibility. Many seem to realize this, hiding behind ideology and attacking people when the facts are against them. It's easy to call a creation scientist a liar when you are incapable of reason, isn't it?

Edit, added this screenshot:
The straw man attack is obvious, but the writer insists that he is right, then changes the subject and attacks, compounding the fallacies.


Persecution of Christians is increasing worldwide, and Christians in the West should be ready for it as well. We can see this from the aforementioned Internet attacks on Christians, as well as the constant whining and legislative efforts and protests from hypocritical atheist groups who claim to believe in "freedom" — which is for anti-Christian activities, homosexuality, polygamy and other deviant acts that atheism attracts.


Some of us wonder when blind hatred of some of these atheists, agnostics and evolutionists will result in violence. Oh, wait. It has:
"Come on, Cowboy Bob! That doesn't mean all atheists, agnostics and evolutionists will get violent!"

Nobody is saying that they will all become killers or do depraved activities. Many are moral according to society's standards. There are two important points to keep in mind. First, their moral standard is arbitrary and inconsistent. Second, they are simply being consistent with their worldview. People are given only the cherry-picked data supporting evolution, not told about the deceptions and bad science, not taught how to think critically but instead are brainwashed, "survival of the fittest", no creator, no judgment, no ultimate moral standards — just acting like the animals that they are told they came from. Ideas have consequences, and if you take the Bible away, these things should not be a surprise.



There was almost another atheist evolutionist killing spree.
A young man who idolized the Columbine killers was preparing to kill dozens or hundreds of people at a 
[Waseca] Minnesota high school. Multiple news sources (The Examiner, Daily News, The Blaze, and more) are mentioning that 17-year-old John LaDue, who was preparing a deadly mass attack on his family and school, was a passionate admirer of Harris and Klebold – the killers who launched the modern era of senseless mass killings in 1999 on the school grounds at Columbine High School in Colorado. Photos from that attack showed Harris with a T-shirt during the rampage labeled, “Natural Selection” in large letters. His writings showed that he believed the planned mass shooting would “boost natural selection by a few notches.”
Read the rest of the report and commentary at "Stopped in Time: Another Atheist Killing Spree".


Addendum: Screen shot of an utterly amazing comment:




I'm not the one killing and planning to kill people because I have no consistent moral standard. And I know how to, ya know, make sentences. Like, duh, fer sher, ya know? 



April 30, 2014

Questioning the Dubious Duties of Darwin Drones

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

"But, I held strongly to the view that it was an opportunity to expose the well-intending Ken Ham and the support he receives from his followers as being bad for Kentucky, bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind — I do not feel I’m exaggerating when I express it this strongly."
 "...When I read the deliberate malicious stupid relentless lying evil from hypocrite Sorensen I start to wish that hell really exists. Because he will go there if it does if he does not repent of his hatred towards all people who criticise his online aggression and arrogance whilst wearing 'Christian' ie 'Bible defending' clothing.

"The Question Evolution Project is a Cesspit of Hate as I have demonstrated many times.

"Those caught in Bob's cesspit should get out while they can if they have any sense and if they are real Christians."
An irrational Stalker, and Bill Nye Fanboi 
"...The fact you refuse to learn evolution does NOT give you the right to spread disinformation; without that disinformation being criticized. Plainly put, this article is a crock of s**t."
— from a comment left at The Question Evolution Project

EDIT: Addendum at the bottom, people ironically proving me right.

It is puzzling how evolutionists, whether they are atheist, agnostic, theistic, old earth Scripture-compromising or something else seem to feel compelled to silence the opposition. Bill Nye, evolution's poster boy, has made ridiculous statements about how evolution is essential to understanding "science", indicating that he does not understand the nature of science himself. Richard Dawkins tells his followers to ridicule Christians (so much for "tolerance" — and atheists wonder why they are disliked by so many people). Various atheist celebrities make good money at writing books ridiculing "religion" and engaging in debates.

The rank-and-file drones patrol (emphasis on "troll") the interweb on a mission to find and attack Christian content. They seek it on social media, Weblogs, merchandising sites and more, then attack us. Especially biblical creationist content. They seem to be compelled to make a variety of comments that are inane, obscene, antagonistic, laughable or any combination thereof.

PD/US Military (modified)

Why? What do they hope to accomplish?

As you can see, some are consumed with blind hate. People who run other Pages on Facebook with Christian material will comment to me that they didn't really believe how depraved these atheopaths can be until they saw it themselves. I can understand that, since my reporting (as well as linking to comments of hateful people) does not have the impact for someone who does not experiencing it for himself or herself.

So, we question why.

I do know one answer: It's a spiritual thing. They deny the existence of God and suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1.18-22). People are enemies of God (Rom. 5.15, Phil. 3.18) before they are adopted as God's children through the blood of Jesus Christ (John 1.12, Gal. 4.5-6). They are doing the will of their father down below (John 8.44), and though they think they are "freethinkers" using "reason", they are actually slaves to sin and cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2.14, John 8.34, 1 Cor. 3.19-20). Sin affects the mind (Rom. 1.22.23). They hate God, the Word, humility for salvation — and us. Part of their hatred of God's people is based on the fact that we have been redeemed and represent God in the world. We stink to them (2 Cor. 2.15-16).

But another aspect of the "why" question defies reason: Why do they feel the need to protect science?


Creation science is "anti-science rhetoric" that harms the entire species according to this troll.

Whether the wandering Internet trolls or the high-profile evolutionists, they act like they're on a mission. From whom? Science itself does not need protection! What is worse, they are using bad reasoning to justify their activities, equivocating "science" with "evolution". But evolution is not science, it is speculation about the past using scientific processes to interpret things that are observed in the present. A great deal of evolutionary science is not scientific at all. Rather, it is metaphysics (especially when dealing with cosmogony). Speculations about evolution are frequently presented as scientific truth.

Many of Darwin's Drones seem to think you are stupid. Instead of letting you evaluate the evidence, you must be protected from creation science so you're not confused with facts that they do not want you to learn. They'll save you!

A tremendous irony is that many claim some kind of moral motive. We are "liars" because we disagree with evolutionary presuppositions and show their errors (which makes them furious). When we present our point of view and the facts that anti-creationist do not want you to know, they attack. Biblical creationists have the Bible as our ultimate standard of morality. They do not have an ultimate, consistent standard of morality. To say that we're evil, they are actually appealing to a higher standard — they're appealing to God and, therefore, to the biblical worldview! The meaning in their lives is based on a fundamentally flawed worldview that is irrational, incoherent and inconsistent.

Further, they feel they must eliminate biblical creation science. This is the opposite of the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Instead, science thrives on challenges; if a hypothesis or theory is found to be faulty, it is modified or even discarded. But not evolution. That stays no matter what. Dawkins said in The Blind Watchmaker that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". There is a strong measure of humanistic arrogance in clinging to evolution, but it is also the spiritual problem that man is at war with God and does not wish to humble himself before the Creator.

My conclusion, then is that their fighting to promote evolution and suppress alternative viewpoints has a spiritual base. Man hates God and wants to proudly cling to "wisdom" and false "science" to justify rejection of God. No wonder they hate those of us who have a personal relationship with Jesus, the Creator who became a man, died for our sins, bodily rose from the dead and offers salvation. But it comes on his terms, not ours. We must humble ourselves and receive his gift (Ephesians 2.8-9).

Darwin's Cheerleaders can actually have purpose and meaning in their lives through Christ. They can build up instead of destroy.

ADDENDUM: People were so blinded by hate, they left comments that inadvertently proved me right.
Now why do you suppose this post, which has little to no value whatsoever, shows up as "what's hot and recommended"? I'll tell you why--it's because of all the creationist drones sharing and plussing it in a concerted, preplanned effort.  If this isn't a case of a pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. But I can't say that I'm even the least bit surprised. It's a common tactic of the religious to claim the exact opposite, and to project their worst traits onto their opponents.
— Left at Google Plus. Sounds paranoid, frankly.
 Lying never works in the long run - even if you're doing it for God.
— Left at Google Plus, very helpful, makes me a better person.

It's hardly a matter of "blind hate." I'd describe it more as an informed disgust. Most atheists who bash the bible and creationism know more about the bible than many Christians do. We know all about its promotion of rape, slavery, and mass murder and find its barbaric teachings and factual inaccuracies disgusting not only on a personal level, but we feel it has held back scientific progress for centuries. The bible is a relic whose teachings should be recognized only from the standpoint of mythologies...
— Left at Google Plus, incomplete because I copied it from my e-mail notification. You get the point, though, full of prejudicial conjecture and hatred, then claiming to be smarter than all the Christians.

These comments have been deleted from the Google Plus post. Why? Because I'm not obligated to give non-thinking haters a platform for their egos and vitriol, nor do I want to waste time in a fruitless "discussion" with minds like these.



March 3, 2013

Another Liar for Darwin

Took down the last one and reworked it. Sorry for the inconvenience. At least, it's short.

People are so consumed by hate, they're stupidified.

Motto: "Where people mercifully free of the ravages of thought
gather for support and group hugs".

First, I want you to see this annotated bit (click to enlarge) from the creationist-hating group at the British Centre for Scientism and Evolutionism:

Peter Henderson, liar for Darwin


Now, a screen shot of the actual post that was disingenuously, incompletely cited:

The Question Evolution Project screen shot

Once again, I must remind my friends, acquaintances, agents and associates that I don't want to know about this stuff. Even though I did like showing their lack of fact checking and outright dishonesty.

February 12, 2013

Zack Kopplin, Useful Idiot for Evolution



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

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

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

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


March 17, 2012

Societal Devolution Accelerates

"Nope, birth is also arbitrary, and it has not been even a cultural universal that newborns are regarded as fully human. I’ve had a few. They weren’t."
—P.Z. Myers
Buona sera. I have known for quite a while that people want more and more. More money, more mattress dancing, more booze, more drugs, more power, more prestige, more food — more pleasure in general. Further, I believe that the physical desires have emotional and spiritual attachments that also interact with the spiritual realm. Take a look at this familiar passage:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,  (Romans 1:18-22, RSV)
"Well, sure, Uncle Bob, we know that. Evidence for creation is all around, so the atheist is lying to himself when he says that he "lacks belief" or "lacks evidence" for the existence of God. You keep telling us."
There is something more that I want you to see. Keep going:
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. (Romans 1:22-25, RSV)
Notice that "God gave them up".

Albert Barnes said this:
He abandoned them, or he ceased to restrain them, and suffered them to act out their sentiments, and to manifest them in their life. This does not imply, that he exerted any positive influence in inducing them to sin, any more than it would if we should seek, by argument and entreaty, to restrain a headstrong youth, and when neither would prevail, should leave him to act out his propensities. and to go as he chose to ruin. It is implied in this,
(1)    That the tendency of man was to these sins;
(2)    That the tendency of idolatry was to promote them; and,
(3)    That all that was needful, in order that people should commit them, was for God to leave him to follow the devices and desires of his own heart; compare Psalm 81:12; 2 Thess 2:10, 2 Thess 2:12.
So, in effect, God says, "Have it your way, let your own nature come to the fore", capice?
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Romans 1:26-32, RSV)
Lusts become consuming and are the masters instead of the objects of desire. More than that, I believe that the ability to think is worn away. Some people call this the "noetic effect of sin". I have seen it in action. Atheists who hate God and his people so much will be so consumed by their hatred and rage that they cannot follow basic logic (documented elsewhere on this Weblog). Further, misotheists do not "police their own", but rather, applaud angry misuses of logic:

"...they not only do them but approve those who practice them".
By the way, Skippy, compare the incomes of Dawkins, Myers, Harris and the like to the creationists.
Oh, and you spelled your hero's name wrong.

One place that the devolution of the misotheistic evolutionist mind is readily apparent is in the area of abortion. Social Darwinism becomes utilitarian. God's Word brings light (Psalm 119.130). God's people are standing in the way of depravity running even more rampant than it does now.
We have often provided evidence for the full humanity of the unborn child right from conception (i.e. fertilization of egg by sperm). And while still in the womb, children develop the ability to feel pain and even to plan their future, and are considered to be patients. Individual life is a continuum from conception to natural death. Birth changes nothing intrinsically about the nature of that life, just location and mode of respiration (from placenta to lungs).
This is one vital matter on which to decide the abortion issue, because murder applies only to human victims, not to the removal of a tumor or wart. The evidence for the humanity of the unborn has thus convinced many that abortion is wrong, since they disapprove of murder. For the same reason, most pro-abortion politicians don’t even dare to admit that the baby is human; they lie about it being a ‘blob of cells’, or obfuscate about it with feigned ignorance about the nature of the unborn, and quips that the question of where life begins is ‘above my pay grade.’ Never mind that the onus of proof is on the pro-abortionists to show that it’s not human life. If we didn’t know whether a body was live or dead, we would never bury it—we would give the benefit of the doubt to life.
Read the rest of the devolved mindset of Myers and others in the rest of "Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide", here.


May 22, 2010

Why I Cannot Trust Atheists Part 1

Buon giorno. Let me start with an excuse. It's only been about six weeks since I have actively come back to my Christian faith, and I am still lacking in the "Christian love" department.

But I do know about truth. And I'm not in the mood to coddle anybody, so put on your "I'm all gwowed up" pants and brace yourselves.

I have learned quite a bit over the past few weeks about the modern breed of atheists. My regular readers know that I've been around for quite a while. During those years, I've encountered atheists. One guy in 1974 (I was 14) was railing in school that "all Christians should be burned at the stake!" I never did find out what brought that on. Other than him, most of the atheists have been civil, "live and let live" types who may or may not want to discuss their beliefs. For that matter, some people call themselves atheists simply because they haven't given serious thought about God and the truth of Jesus.

Now we have the "new atheists". Saying that they are "aggressive" is an understatement. You'll notice that the "comments" section of my Weblogs has been shut down because of cowardly Internet atheist trolls.

(Sigh) I suppose I have to do this every time: I am speaking in generalities, and I know that there are atheists who are calm, intelligent and rational. They would like to discuss the subjects. I know you're out there. I implore you, please think about what the Bible says and ask God to speak to your heart and show you that he's real. You may not have tomorrow, capice?

Mind you, this Weblog has been, and I intend it to remain, a multi-purpose thing. It's not all about you, it's about what I want to put on the screen to inform and entertain. And I'm going to move on to other things because these atheists are boring and predictable. That's the first reality I'm presenting that you have to deal with.

OK, now I'm going to proceed with my thoughts and observations.

"Yeah, do it, Loser! You Xtians are all big dumb stupidheads! Yer just gonna look stoopid again"

Thank you for bringing me to my first point: Although they claim to love logic, they ignore it. There are numerous logical fallacies I've seen and experienced with them, but I don't want to take the time to cover them all. Addendum: Look for the "Logic Lessons" links on this site.
  • Instead of discussions, they resort to ad hominem attacks. I have had personal attacks here, my Western Values Weblog and in other areas. Instead of sticking to the point, they attack me. I suspect that they have two goals: First, to simply be vicious (sick minds get their kicks that way). Second, to try to neutralize me by making others hate me, or to make me clam up and go away. Bad idea. Won't happen.
  • Using the "so are you" fallacy, tu quoque. Here's a news flash: Christians do not have a monopoly on being hypocrites. When their own hypocrisy is pointed out, they go bananas. Denial, deflection, ignoring and whatever else it takes is activated to dodge the issue.
  • They commonly use something similar to "false dilemma", the "either/or" fallacy. I am uncertain if I have the correct example or if I should have found a more accurate name for this, but I have been confronted with stupid questions that I have ignored. Since I did not respond to their childish "I want an answer now" demand, it was assumed that my silence was an admission of guilt, or error. No, my silence is an admission of not wanting to waste my time, Buttercup.
  • Appeal to ridicule. "You believe in magic", or, "It makes as much sense as believing in the flying spaghetti monster", or, "The Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales". The first one is absurd, nobody is saying anything about magic except you, the second is a clear example of this fallacy, the third is an insult based on extreme ignorance.
  • Poisoning the well. The ad hominem attacks are used to say that Christians are stupid, ignorant, liars, hypocrites, etc. That is just a lame excuse to avoid issues. "He's a Christian, and they're all wrong, etc.", or, "This one is a false Christian, a liar and a hypocrite", to negate what is being said, is just another way to dodge the issue.
  • Declaring something makes it true. "Religion is fairy tales. Despite this obvious truth..."
  • I have seen some wild stuff, and they even combine fallacies. Aside from being full of venom, they will combine the straw man fallacy with sweeping generalizations (like my earlier example, "You xtians are all...") and wind up babbling into incoherence.
  • Smokescreens, dodging the question, sweeping generalizations, appealing to popularity and more are easily found.
By the way, I wanted to borrow Matt Slick's term about atheist thought, "stupidificaction", for my title. Maybe I should have. "Stupidificaction — The Next Generation".

These atheists are full of hate and rage. Want an intelligent conversation? When it comes to the majority, fuggedaboudit. I cannot reprint the hate mail I have received on my comments, nor the hateful diatribes that have been sent to me and to other Christians in forums because they are obscene, illogical and full of profanities. Again, they often ignore the subject at hand, or take it to laughable extremes.

Atheists of today are cowards. It's easy to say things online that you wouldn't have the guts to say to someone in person. Add to it that they are using fake names, "unpublished" profiles at Blogger.com, very few will give even an e-mail address, and you get the idea. I have given many links for further resources if someone really wants to get more information, but those have received very, very few clicks. Hey, why not call the CARM radio show and debate Matt live on the air? He's waiting for you, but you have to call during Mountain Time. Click here for more information if you're not just talk and no action.

By the way, why do you troll Christians most of all? Perhaps, deep inside, you know that we have the truth? You're following the will of your father (John 8.44). I don't see atheists giving a hard time to New Agers, followers of astrology, UFO enthusiasts, Buddhists (atheists would have a field day on the doctrines of karma and reincarnation) and so forth. Obviously, you're terrified of picking on Muslims and Satanists (although atheists would fit in with LaVey Satanism, which promotes self above all else); Jews and real Christians don't perform ritual killings or murder thousands of innocent people, so maybe that's another reason we're your targets. Huh, seems that I can think of atheists that have murdered millions of people. I'll hit you with that again later.

Hateful atheists are unbalanced. I'm going to make an exception and give an edited version of one of my love letters: "Hey there pig f**ker. I know you won't let this post through, but I want you to read it. Because I want you to know that I'm not gonna let up on you. You can run from blog to blog, but every time you post, I'll find you and call you out on your hypocritical bulls**t. So start running tough guy."

Here's another one, but edited more: "I see you're already blocking comments on your posts. That' okay. I'll just copy your nonsense and paste it on another site. [Joke's on them, I'm skipping most of their comments.] This is gonna be fun. I'll hand you your false convert ass every day, until you can't take it anymore. But don't go blowing anyone up on my account. Actually you're like the gay parent on the South Park "High School Musical" episode. The one who threatened to slap everyone. Hmmmm... Are you a self-loathing gay as well?"

Yeah, I'm shaking, Bubbles.

  • These cowards throw stones at a distance, but have nothing of substance to offer. This makes me wonder, though, how useful they are in real life. One cafone listed a hobby as "messing with Christians", or something similar. Wow, that's fulfilling. Someone so hateful, so spiteful, that they have to "follow you around" cannot be playing with a full deck. Well, maybe a full deck of jokers.
  • I read book reviews at Amazon about evidence for Intelligent Design. Atheists slam the book as being ridiculous, they presume to be smarter than the author (even if he is a qualified molecular biologist), etc. Attack, attack, attack. But they look like petty fools.
  • Also, I saw some comments about Christian rock bands: "There's no such thing as God, you're all idiots", and similar.
  • There was a forum in which I used to participate, and the militant atheists would start complaining that there were "too many Christians in here, wish they'd get their own forum". Replies included, "I just slap them down when they get out of line". I shot this one with his own gun, saying that if he felt that way, why not go to an atheist-only forum? As expected, the excrement struck the bladed cooling device.
  • Somehow, they simply think it's cool to ridicule our beliefs. What else do you ridicule? They take their Unhelpful Pills before going online, yes?
This atheistic trolling online is nothing less than their anti-faith jihad! People need to get lives. That includes growing up and coming out of their parents' basements. Also, if I get angry and strike back at every petty insult, that causes me to act in a manner unpleasing to God after a while, and I don't want to sink as low as they are.

Internet atheists are full of pride and arrogance. They claim to be "bright", "free thinkers", "enlightened" and so on, plus have astonishingly arrogant forums like, "We are so freakin' smart because we disbelieve". Tell me, O Wise Ones, how does choosing to disbelieve make you so clever? If you were truly clever, you wouldn't be trolling and trying to destroy the faith of believers. Also, if you were truly intelligent, you would consider evidence and arguments that Christians present, or visit Websites of apologetics, instead of squirming and dodging.

Atheists do not admit that they, too, have faith. In their case, most of that faith is in evolutionism despite contrary evidence, and the huge lack of evidence. After all, Papa Darwin's theory is a convenient excuse to account for the existence of an astonishingly complex universe. Also, they insist that "there is no God", an act of faith itself. If you call them on this one, there is tremendous wailing and gnashing of teeth.

OK, gang, this is enough for one day. (Ha! "One day". This was days in the planning and writing.) Part 2 can be found here.

Subscribe in a reader