Showing posts sorted by relevance for query atheist rationalwiki. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query atheist rationalwiki. Sort by date Show all posts

April 1, 2017

The Amazing Super Powers of the Mighty Atheist™

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Years ago, I wrote "atheist" on Twitter, and one cautioned me about using that word because I risked "calling down the thunder". We know that they can be ornery cusses even on their good days, but I was unaware of the intellectual prowess and wisdom of The Mighty Atheist™, dwarfing that of a mere theist. What I had yet to learn, however, is that they also have super powers that are even magical at times. Now I know better. Christians and creationists, I hope you heed this warning!

Super powers mighty atheist
Graphic modified from Clker clipart
As with other super powers, those of The Mighty Atheist™ are difficult to categorize. Not all atheists and evolutionists have the same powers to the same degree, and there is no special school for gifted atheists under a professor so they can develop their abilities. Like logical fallacies, powers often blend and overlap. Let's saddle up and ride over yonder to Deception Pass where the atheists, atheopaths, anti-creationists, and others are having a hootenanny to celebrate International Atheists Day right now.

Yes, they know what you are going to say one-on-one, what a creationist is going to say at a conference, and everything between. Many often know what you are doing during your Sisyphean apologetic efforts. They also know that difficulties for evolution discussed by creationists (such as dinosaur blood and soft tissues) will someday have a scientific explanation, so creationists are already wrong before that great day happens. An example: "I could ask Gordons WHAT 'misrepresentation' took place and WHAT relevant information I omitted. But he would not answer my question. So I don't think I'll bother."

Atheists are able to read an introduction to an article or even just a title and know what is being said. There is no need to follow links or read the rest of the article. This tinhorn is able to asses the intellectual ability of a writer and utterly dismiss him simply by reading a few paragraphs. Cherry-picking and straw man argumentation is permitted (discussed below).

When challenging evolution and atheism, the Christians and creationists are required to provide credentials of advanced education in relevant areas. Since atheists and evolutionists have no need for reading articles and their supporting links, they are not required to show credentials — or even to possess significant education; any jasper can defend evolution. Flinging outdated, biased links from Wikipedia, Talk.Origins, (Ir)RationalWiki, and other sites that favor them is justified. Even an abstract (which is a kind of promise for what will be included in a scientific paper) is devastating to us. Indeed, the links to do not even need to be related to the topic at hand, and we are effectively refuted. A step further, although they disbelieve in God (but still hate him) and reject the Bible, many are experts in theology (albeit without education) and can refute any Christian who dares to oppose their statements.

While the rest of us are constrained to following the rules of logic, The Mighty Atheist™ is able to use cherry-picking, misrepresentation, ad hominems, straw men, hasty generalization, and many more arguments that are normally considered illegitimate. When a Christian or creationist identifies those, fallacies are no longer fallacies, but are transformed into legitimate argumentation. In addition, actively lying about Christians and creationists is effective, because lies become truth when uttered by those with super powers. In a similar manner, opinions change into facts! Any assertion or accusation can be made, and evidence is unnecessary. Changing the subject and attacking when cornered is encouraged by these heroes of atheism, and again, no longer fallacious. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Atheists have conveniently redefined atheism as "lack of belief" instead of the long-established meaning of "belief that there is no God or supernatural". It becomes valid for an evolutionist or atheist to call someone a liar when a statement is made that these sidewinders dislike or are unable to refute. Yes, it becomes a lie because they said so. Actual definitions of atoms-to-atheist evolution can be changed so they can be more evolution-friendly. Calling someone a "fascist", even though most do not know what that word means, makes someone a fascist. We cannot dispute this ability, and must accept it.

The Mighty Atheist™ has no tolerance for those of us who dare mock their popes and high priests, such as Carl Satan Sagan, Charles Darwin, Clinton Richard Dawkins, and so on. Presuppositions held by materialistic atheists and evolutionists are true, and need not be supported through logic. When challenged, the empowered atheist may shoot you down with death rays from his eyes, usually accompanied with epithets of, "Liar! Fascist! You know nothing of science! What you said is not true! I'm smarter than you!" and so on. Although they reject God, they hate him; blasphemy is acceptable in their eyes, even daring to call God a liar.

They can find like-minded people to join on their atheistic jihads. Think of piranhas. (This ability is used frequently among atheists and evolutionists who have less developed super powers.) I had said that one atheopath has a personal motto of "I'm telling!", and that is common among them. They seek out their own kind to join in with attacks, but also tattle on Christians and creationists to entreat assistance from those who may have power and authority. These junior members are often ignored by their superiors.

One of the best things I learned from a comic book was the line from Spider-Man, "With great power comes great responsibility". When it comes to The Mighty Atheist™ , something similar is true: with great egos come the illusion of great power. Though most try to deny it, atheism is a religion. They may think we are defeated, but we have truth in the Word of God.

They may think they are bringing the world wisdom and reason, but they are fools (Psalm 14:1). Despite the protestations of professing atheists, they do know that God the Creator exists (Rom. 1:18-23). Their worldly "wisdom" is worthless (1 Cor. 1:20). Like the rest of us, they have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and deserve divine punishment, but can be redeemed (Rom. 6:23). Not only redeemed, but can become children of God (John 1:12, Rom. 8:13-17). The tremendous pride, arrogance, and bullying of atheists and fundamentalist evolutionists makes it difficult for them to humble themselves and repent, but they can have new life. Not just atheists, but all unbelievers are under God's wrath and need to repent for salvation. Today is April 1. Don't be a fool in God's eyes.

July 28, 2013

Atheism, Libel, Cowardice and (ir) RationalWiki

Most of the Internet atheists that I have encountered are big and bold about being "rational". But they are not content to believe that they are smarter than us st00pid dumb Xtians. No, they need to troll and attack people. (I fully believe that many do this because they are simply childish bullies attempting to bolster their egos.) For example, this gem appeared at "The Question Evolution Project":
This was a simple-minded attack, incorporating Bunches-o-Fallacies® and emotionalism, but no rational thought. They like to offer opinions based on titles, introductions and summaries, but usually ignore entire articles and supporting links.

I have said before that I can see no valid reason for demonizing Christians (and especially creationists). Such immature behavior not only helps illustrate the natural failings of the religion of atheism, but increases the negative public perception of atheists. Indeed, these irrational and emotion-driven atheists make their own "poes". The libelous hate speech site (ir) RationalWiki does not use reason. Instead, any child with an agenda can use this as a way to attack people instead of using an intellectual approach to deal with issues. Those who have the time and interest to squash annoying insects can do so. Or we can hire lawyers for defamation. Richard Dawkins, the atheist hate monger and their equivalent of America's race baiter Al Sharpton, has famously avoided debates with William Lane Craig and with Bible-believing creationists. (His vituperative bullying has begun to put people off; he has failed, and a few atheists with some sense are showing some civility.) But we still have to deal with Dawkinsites who want to sound big and bad, but are "all hat, no cattle".

Many atheists tell us that they're brilliant because they're atheists (a logical fallacy right there), but they will not back up their claims. The ones who want to debate should follow through and make a defense for atheism. If I was an atheist, I'd be embarrassed by these types. F'rinstance:
That's right, (ir)RationalWiki ran away
Let's focus on that last one. That den of defamation was issued a challenge to debate the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" from Creation Ministries International. (My haters are furious that CMI saw fit to use my video on their site, by the way.) It's not something that can be quickly dismissed by using canned responses and throwing links from propaganda sites like Talk.Origins. No, people actually have to put some effort into it.

If I'm reading it right, (ir)RationalWiki editor Fergus "Brave Sir Robin" Mason lost an initial debate with VivaYeshua (he's fared badly elsewhere). When reason reared its head, "he bravely turned his tail and fled". Fergus Mason was challenged, accepted and then backed down. Click here to read more.

Der Narr spricht in seinem Herzen:
»Es gibt keinen Gott!«
Sie handeln verderblich, und abscheulich ist ihr Tun;
da ist keiner, der Gutes tut.

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.

October 23, 2012

Atheism and the "Gotcha!" Game

There are several ways that I've seen Dawkinsites, Darwin's Junior Stormtroopers, stalkers, Intolerant Tolerants and other vituperative members of the Thought Police play the "Gotcha!" game. Like many of their activities, this is rooted in pride and ego.

First, they go to the laughable pooling of ignorance sites of atheism (such as the inane [ir]RationalWiki) and evolutionism (such as the absurd to find horrible "proofs" for their worldviews, and try to catch Christians and creationists with such nonsense. (It is very tedious to try to have anything resembling a discussion when someone posts nonsense from one of those sites as if it was a complete refutation of someone's position, but they do not engage in actual discourse.) It's amazing how people with little to no knowledge of theology, psychology, history, philosophy, ancient literature, culture, social customs, language, science and other things seem to think that they are going to be the ones to destroy God and Christianity. Sorry, Skippy, it's been tried by grown-ups much more intelligent than you for centuries, and we're still standing strong.

A variation is when they will ask a question that a Christian or a creationist cannot answer, and then use logical fallacies to "prove" that there is no God. I remember hearing a caller on Matt Slick's radio show ( drop something on Matt at the very end of the show when the closing music was playing. Matt had not heard of the subject (nor had I, but big deal) and asked the caller to e-mail him information so he could research it. The atheist cackled with glee, and then bragged on his Weblog that he has stumped Matt. In all cases, Christians and creationists cannot know everything about everything. What a ridiculous standard to impose. It is hypocritical as well, since they would not make such unreasonable demands of other atheists, often bleating, "It's OK to admit that you don't know something". True — but be consistent.

Second, they play "Gotcha!" with personal attacks. This is even more outlandish than the first, and often occurs when the attacker has been shown that atheism is fundamentally flawed, or how sciences does not support evolution. The game is simple: Complain about character. It does not require accurate knowledge about Biblical teachings. If a Christian corrects the atheist, the player will just accuse him of being a hypocrite and making baby Jesus cry. The "logic" seems to run like this: "You are not a good enough Christian to please me. Christianity is false. There is no God!"

Of course, they exhibit appalling lack of knowledge of what the Bible really teaches, and requires occasional quote mining of Bible verses. When bitter, illogical apostates try these things, it's a toss-up whether they're being pitiful or being amusing . Some even claim to have been evangelical Christians at one time. Well... Raising your hand during an emotional moment to "accept Jesus" does not count, sorry to say. Nor does just attending a church or being a member of some religious organization.

The "Gotcha!" game is often played when atheopaths are bested in logic and are shown how atheism (and its ugly cousin, Deism) are incoherent, irrational worldviews. Since their worldviews do not have the necessary preconditions of human experience and are inconsistent, they borrow from the biblical creationist worldview. They hate this fact.

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