Stormbringer's Thunder

Edited for wording and clarity. "I might believe in the Redeemer if His followers looked more Redeemed." — Fredrick Nietzsche Most of the time, my dealings with atheists are filled with their wild-eyed rants, insults, putting words in the mouths of others, outright slander, profanity, aloofness and other things in their efforts to dodge the truth. (After all, I can prove something until I'm blue in the nose, but that doesn't mean they will be persuaded.) No, we can offer things, but when it comes to actually accepting and believing, "Ya gotta wanna". Otherwise, they pretend to elevate reason and logic, but fail miserably. Here's a hint: put on your big boy pants and deal with the subject instead of railing, mmmmkay? One dodge that they use is to attack Christians. The problem is, some of these attacks are accurate observations. "Why are there so many denominations?" Because we're people, not androids. The

I want to leave these things alone, but I keep getting involved — and having a perverse joy with it. Why aren't the few thoughtful atheists and agnostics embarrassed by the actions of the vast majority of arrogant atheists? I have to talk to and about that bigger group, and the more civil "live and let live" atheists think I'm going after them as well. But the majority of the time, the atheists are rude weasels begging for a good slapping down. If you're a "good" atheist, then duck! Funny how there are atheists on Twitter, Facebook, forums, "boards" and such that put "atheist" in their names. It puzzles me that someone would want to have their entire online identity (or possibly every aspect of their personhood as well) wrapped up in something so hostile, negative and antagonistic. But anyway, it helps me identify my opponents. (One actually goes by the name "gaytheist". Wow. Provoke much, Bubbles?) If you read their postin

Buon giorno. First of all, I want to mention how I fouled up the other day. Whenever I make a posting, it gets announced via Twitter and also put on Facebook. Aside from the automatic thing, I will help it along and give it some extra wording to make the announcement sensible. Well, the announcements went out, and then I began tinkering with the layout here. I thought I had things cleared up, but a couple of atheists jumped on the blog posting that appeared on top of mine. They made comments on Twitter that caused me to go, "Huh?" But they were so determined to find something to cry and badger me about that they did not read my own material (most of them did not spend any time on this Weblog at all.) Only one guy did keep going and read my work, the one that asked me for a clarification on something. That just reinforces my belief that atheists do not want to deal with opposing points of view, they are more interested in throwing stones. After all, when all they read was a

Genesis 1.1 Yesterday, I posted another of my famous articles questioning the intellectual honesty of atheists. Naturally, I took some heat for it. And that's a good thing. The problem is, the flak that I received helped prove my points! But first, I was asked a question: " Do you believe all atheists fall into those categories?" Nope. Do you think I'm stupid enough to try to box a group of people and a complex issue into just five areas? As I explained in that article, I have had my own experiences, plus reading, hearing interviews and having discussions with others regarding atheists, the whole thing was fresh in my mind. One guy lashed out at me on Twitter. He wears "atheist" in his name as a badge of honor, and it appears that his whole purpose in Twitter is to bash Christians and the Bible. Some of his comments were so amazingly vapid and caustic, I wonder if he (and some others) are deliberately stupid! In yesterday's article, I was usi

About a year ago, I wrote a post about bandwagon convictions . That is, if your values and inner convictions are based on doing the popular thing, they are not worth a great deal. I felt that it was time to try the subject again. There are people I know who are atheists, but I suspect their motives as well as their ability to reason: They claim to be atheists out of shock value and to get attention for themselves They are intellectually dishonest cowards, not actually examining evidence for the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus or the existence of God , or against evolution and showing that there is a Creator They have friends also claiming to be atheists, so they do not want to be left out; trendy They do not have the courage to take a stand for the truth, and it is easier to try to tear down Christianity They do not want to confront the possibility that if God is real, they cannot justify their lifestyles That is comrade Stalin in the picture. He was an atheist leader

This video from the 1980s by the great DeGarmo and Key band is startling in several ways, not the least of which is the change in technology between then and now (dot matrix printer, 5-1/4 inch floppy disks, Apple computer, etc.). Also, if you're familiar with videos like ZZ Top's "Sharp Dressed Man", you'll notice a similarity in the production style. I can't prove it, and spent a lot of time trying to do just that, but if memory serves, a producer and/or director of ZZ Top material was involved in making DeGarmo and Key's "Six Six Six". If you can't see the video, it is also embedded at the mirror posting . Addendum: Google fouled up a bit, some of the sound is muddled here. I suggest the other version at the mirror site.

Buon giorno. No, I'm not filing for separation from anyone. This "separation" thing is the alleged "separation of church and state". What I have to say seems contradictory at first glance, so I have to lay some groundwork. While listening to a debate between apologetics expert Matt Slick at CARM (any relation to John Slick who played keyboards for Petra, Matt? Addendum: "No", he told me. ) and an atheist he had to take a position that seemed contradictory to the atheist. (But that's typical of atheists, they want things their way, and do word games so they can play "gotcha!") The question was whether or not atheism is intellectually feasible. The "Infidel Guy" was obviously squirming and getting antagonistic, so he tried to box Mr. Slick in because he would not give a standard "yes or no" response. But to give that kind of response would have been dishonest. Yes, it's feasible only on the same level as pink uni