November 20, 2011

Bad Logic on My Part

There were voices in the night 
"Don't do it!"
Voices out of sight
"Don't do it!"
— Chris DeBurgh, "Don't Pay the Ferryman"

Buon giorno. I did some bad logic. Yes, I know it's astonishing. But your astonishment will evaporate when I tell you that it was on purpose.

You see, when I did an article about appearing on an atheist "show" (podcast thing), I asked the viewing public if I should engage in this activity:

The question itself is biased. Then, the first two answer choices contained loaded wording. The third selection was legitimate, and the last two were because I wanted to be funny (I was the only one to vote on "Sorry, what?"). If I worked for a pollster, I would have been sacked.

In the article, I pointed out my dealings with some of those people in this "show" included manipulation, personal attacks, ridicule, profanity and fundamentally flawed logic. They must think that I am stupid, because I am still badgered to be on the "show", even though I have repeatedly explained my reasons for refusal. Further, continued attempts at manipulation and appeal to pride ("Come on the show, prove you're not a Poe") reinforce my belief that they have no respect for my intelligence, beliefs or for me as a person. By the way, the "prove that I'm not a Poe" nonsense can easily be turned around because atheists have their own Poes. News flash, guys! Ridicule is not a form of logical discussion!

Another reason that this poll was spurious is because I never intended to participate. But then, I never claimed that I would abide by the results of the poll. Which is a good thing, because it was obviously manipulated by these guys and their pals. I received e-mails strongly imploring me not to do this thing ("Don't waste your breath nor fingers as no good can come from that situation"..."I voted for "leave it alone". As I was doing so I noticed "38 votes so far" and thought, "Hey, that's pretty good." And when the results appeared I could see that 26 of those votes are from your creepazoid stalkers. They really want you, baby! Take my advice, it'll be better for your blood pressure. I can feel mine going up just thinking about it"), and personal conversations strongly advising me to give it a miss.

Something I forgot to mention in the previous article is that I had no idea how many atheists I would be facing, and what topics. (I was told much later by the one who is actually civil that it would be one-on-one, and I could choose the topic. Aside from my trust level being zero, I have the larger concern of being unable to see much value in the whole thing, aside from making their CV look good.) I'm not Matt Slick, James White (not every show takes calls) or Greg Koukl, ready and willing to take on just about anything in a cold call. One of these atheopaths has humiliated himself on Matt's show, I'd love to hear him try his stunts with Greg or Dr. White. Tee hee.

I had some extra knowledge that I chose not to mention in the other article: The reputation of these guys who want me to call and "debate" on their "show". I told of my experiences with some of them, but what about people who have actually listened to this thing? "Tribalogue" had some interesting comments, plus a follow-up. So did "Grace in the Triad". (Unfortunately, I had to remove the links to the above material that existed when I made my decision.) Also, I asked someone who had actually endured this "show", and was told, "Don't do it". 

Edit: This arrived in my e-mail: "I am glad that you have decided against appearing on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast with host Alex Botten. After having done a bit of homework on the man and observing him at various blogs on the internet, I have come to the realization that Botten is a sickening and exceedingly wicked man. He is not merely incoherent and irrational—although he is that—but a truly wicked and disturbed man who relishes in his feculent sin."

After the poll was closed, I received an e-mail wanting to set up the debate that I had never promised to do. All these attempts at manipulation are off-putting, to say the least.

If they had started out acting respectfully and being skilful, they could possibly have built up a decent reputation by now. I wonder if they will ever change? Nah. Hate makes people act stupidly, and think irrationally. You can see Alex Botten's lack of logic, lack of civility, lack of understanding the basics of copyright law, lack of willingness to follow the Terms of Service of Wordpress, lack of respect for the rights and sensibilities of others here.

"What's your point, Cowboy Bob?"

I'm glad you asked. There were three. First, I vented a bit. Second, to give other potential callers some information on which to base their decisions to participate. Third, and most important, to discuss how my previous write-up was skewed with loaded terminology; it is an example of the kind of thing that should be approached with caution when it is presented as "objective".
Alex Botten, Jim Gardner, Fundamentally Flawed

November 19, 2011

Is Atheism Another Form of Satanism?

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
— Aleister Crowley

Buon giorno. I called Matt Slick of CARM on his radio show, and we had a rambling discussion as if we were old pals. 

In this edited excerpt, I took out tangents, some pauses and nonessentials that detract from the discussion. Matt and I were both enjoying the topics, and we covered a great deal of ground. The items discussed in the clip include Matt teaching me a new word ("sesquipedalian"), the logical fallacies of evolutionists and atheists, their blind faith remarks, bad evidence (like Lamarckianism and the Miller Experiment) and the demonic influence on atheists. 

I pointed out that one of the foundational points of the LaVey version of Satanism is selfishness. Also, the sin of Lucifer was pride. Obviously, selfishness and pride go well together, and modern arrogant atheists are saturated with pride. This leads to further sin, and to "stupidification" (that is, blind hate and sin make people stupid and they cannot reason; how else can someone justify the attitude that attacking the individual or the God he or she serves is equal to a logical argument, capice?). Then the conversation went to minority positions like atheism, Islam and homosexuality gaining power and imposing their will on others.

I have to add a comment about a remark I made in the broadcast, and at the top of this page. Ready? Good. There is dispute about Aleister Crowley being a Satanist or not, and the actual meaning of the quote. Some claim that it is simply about the Thelema religion that he manufactured, and it means, "Follow your own path". Sorry, Seymour, it still strikes me as a proclamation of selfishness; if he had meant "follow your own path", then he could have simply said that.

Sounds like a grand awful mess, I know, but it will make more sense after you hear it. Since DivShare failed again, here is the MP3 download link (ignore the "unable to play" error). Here is a link to the entire show.

November 17, 2011

Somebody Killed Mohammed

A video at the "Answering Muslims" Weblog, plus references from the Koran, the Hadith, Mohammedan commentaries, the Sira and links.
Through the centuries, thousands of people have claimed to be prophets. Only one, however, rested his claims on the fact that his aorta hadn't been cut. Ironically, as this man lay dying, he confessed that he could feel his aorta being severed.
Click here for the video, references and comments.

November 16, 2011

Sometimes I Can't Blame Atheists for Laughing

Buona sera. Every once in a while, I talk about equivocation. It is a way of blurring the meanings of words by assigning definitions. For instance, microevolution is true. It is variations within species but not breaking away from the limits imposed by genetic information. Macroevolution is not true, "goo to you" changes lead to entirely new creatures. When someone says, "Evolution is observed all the time", sure, but only on the small scale. To try to convince you that evolution happens on a large scale because it is observed on a small scale is an example of equivocation.

Atheists tend to use equivocation regarding Christianity. Is it their fault? In some ways yes, and in some ways no.

Let me walk you through the steps.

The Bible is supposed to be the foundation for Christian faith and practice. The Catholic church uses the Bible to some extent, but also mixes in traditions, rituals, man-made rules &c. In addition, the Catholic church is the oldest and most populous of religions going under the name "Christian".

When an atheist, skeptic or other unbeliever sees someone in the Roman Catholic belief system practicing his or her religion, this unbeliever may think that such practice is common to all who claim to be Christians; this is where the equivocation occurs.

Catholics are not typical representatives of Christendom. In fact, since there are about a billion people who call themselves Catholic, there are unique practices in various countries, cities, churches and individuals. I said before that unbelievers are not entirely at fault for equivocating activities under the guise of Roman Catholicism as representative of all Christianity. That is because of the size and age of the religion; they can't help but do some equivocation. And yet, they are at fault if they continue to assume that all Christians believe and practice like that oddball Catholic that lives down the street; do a little research and engage in some scientific method and see that all Christians are not the same.

Sometimes, people have beliefs that I honestly wonder would be embarrassing to the Vatican. I say this because some of the things I come across are not only completely un-Biblical, but seem more like pagan superstitions or wishful thinking.

So, if Arnie Atheist received the following in his e-mail, he could erroneously but somewhat understandably be laughing at Bible-believing Christians:
Father Ignacio is the healing priest of the Rosary. He is excellent and truly cures. He has performed many miracles of healing. This is a novena of Father Ignacio that he began the 10th of January 2005, and still has not been broken.
When you receive it, pray a Hail Mary and ask for a special favor. You will see what will happen the 4th day of having received this.
(Ask for your favor)
Please do not break this novena. Send it to 6 persons (or as many as you know believe in the power of prayer) that you believe deserve justice, peace, love, health, prosperity, and well being.
No wonder some of you laugh. Just remember, many of us who call ourselves Christians are more interested in following the teachings of the Bible, and not strange, pseudo-Catholic e-mails.

November 15, 2011

Text Message Spam

Buona sera. Here's another public service from Stormbringer Productions. My burn phone received a text message from someone I do not know. I don't like that. It's a burn phone, for crying out loud, and I don't want many people to have the number, capice? Besides, this kind is a pay-per-minute thing.

So, what to my wondering eyes did appear? A miniature message from 1-702-683-4036: "Today we can let you borrow 1000.00! Its easy and takes 5 minutes to get approved by a licensed lender-www.[fuggedaboudit].com."

I got Hal the Hacker involved, and he saw that it came from a wireless caller in or near Las Vegas. (Also called "Lost Wages", and that's exactly what this jerk is trying to do to my wages.) As near as we can figure it, this bunch of spammers grab several burn phones, spam out text messages to send you to their Website. No need for them to worry about getting their accounts deleted, because their dirty work is done and they just move on to another lot of cheap burn phones.

Well, you're warned. You may even want to do a preemptive block on 1-702-683-4036 so you don't get bothered. But then, that number may be trashed already. Piltdown Superman wants to sic his pet Archaeoraptor on them. I should let him.

November 14, 2011

No More Girl Scout Cookies for Me!

Buona sera. It's sad, really. There are some organizations that we were able to rely on to help develop the skills and character of our young people. Since the rise of the "anything goes", tolerance, politically correct, drift to moral liberalism and political leftism, we have to check everyone, it seems. 

The Girl Scouts of the USA has lost its focus. Not only will they allow boys who are sexually confused (mostly from lousy parenting) to join their ranks, but their continual journey to the left is becoming alarming, to say the least. Their November 2011 convention is full of extreme leftists, including pro-abortionists, lesbians and other femi-nazis. Since GSUSA is hypocritical about the values they claim to support, girls are feeling betrayed and are leaving the organization. The Girl Scouts organization needs to face some very tough questions. Here are some questions that girls and their parents can ask to see if GSUSA is really the kind of outfit that they want their girls associating with.

Fortunately for the Christians in the GSUSA, there are similar groups available through churches. Unfortunately, they are not as well funded and unified. Still, these girls are not as likely to be indoctrinated in leftist "values". This can also be a wake-up call to parents to instill strong values in their children, and not rely on disingenuous organizations and the schools to do this part of their work.

Don't ask me to buy the cookies, because I cannot support leftist indoctrination projects, capice?

Credit where it's due, VCY America's "Crosstalk" program put me on to this topic.

November 13, 2011

Double Standards of Tolerance

Buona sera. Have you ever noticed that the people who make the most noise about "tolerance" are the least tolerant? There are two problems with their views. First, "tolerance" has been redefined. In normal use in the context of viewpoints, we can tolerate other people's opinions and values, respect their right to have them. There is no shooting, shouting, ridicule, browbeating, Internet trolling and so forth. We may discuss our differences, we may not. Now the redefinition of tolerance has the connotation that all views are valid, truthful and right. The second problem with the views of the tolerance crowd is that they will not tolerate the view that someone is right and the others are wrong. You tolerate everyone, but when I say that I am right, my views are not to be tolerated. So, their philosophy is ridiculous. Capice?

The Christian viewpoint is the least tolerated, especially if we say that there is a God, there is only one God (Isaiah 45.6), Jesus is the only way to God (John 14.6, Acts 4.12) and that homosexuality is not only unnatural, but a sinful lifestyle (1 Cor. 6.9-12, 1 Timothy 1.8-11, Rom. 1.23-27).

A Christian college student called Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason on his radio show and asked his advice on how to deal with a class assignment regarding LGBT lifestyles, and how she could stand up for her faith. (The original broadcast mp3 is here, about 23 minutes, ten seconds into the show.) She called back with a follow-up report and discussion. They noticed how people who want to be "tolerant" were being intolerant themselves, and disrespectful of the beliefs of others. That follow-up call is excerpted below, or you can listen to the original broadcast mp3, at about 2 hrs, 27 minutes, 38 seconds into that broadcast, here.

Subscribe in a reader