March 12, 2012

Atheist Misrepresentation

Buon giorno. Recently, I had yet another encounter with a non-thinking atheist who defended illogic with more illogic ("It's not a genetic fallacy if it's true", which was not only laughable, but begs the question). Further, he portrayed atheists as noble people who just happen to believe differently and do not bother anyone. I've got some bad news for you, Sunshine, that's a lie. If it was simply a matter of intellect, they would most likely be confident in their worldview and not feel the need to troll, attack and misrepresent Christianity, capice? Are they just excited about their upcoming atheist holiday (April 1?) I doubt it. This nonsense is ongoing.

New Scientist left the science behind and went on an anti-Christian and anti-creationist jihad. The following article is part of a series of refutations of their attacks. This is typical of people who rely on quote mining, taking out of context (including historical, cultural and linguistic), relying on misotheist sites like "I hate God and I'll do anything to justify it and you can copy-n-paste my bad thinking instead of thinking for yourself dot com", and doing basic misrepresentation of the Bible.
Creationist myths
Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant
This argument is undermined by the hundreds of errors and inaccuracies and contradictions found in Bible. It is anything but ‘inerrant’.
A few creationists are honest enough to admit that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is irrelevant as far as they are concerned: as it contradicts the ‘Word of God’, it simply has to be wrong. Some Christians regard the text of the Bible as literally true or, to use their term, as ‘inerrant’. If people reject evolution on this basis, it is only fair to ask whether this belief stands up.
The New Scientist article opens with a poorly-supported summary, two generalised statements (few? some?—How many? Which ones?), and a broad-brushed stroke which disparages the ‘remaining’ creationists, implying by extension a majority of creationists are dishonest.
It continues in apparent confusion, where the author appears to be unable to differentiate between inerrancy of Scripture and ‘literal truth’, a subject we covered extensively in Should Genesis be taken literally? (1993) and Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?
Whichever translation of the Bible you look at it is not hard to find errors. The texts are full of internal contradictions as well as historical and scientific inaccuracies.
With this next statement, we receive our first clues, indicating why the author is confused regarding Biblical accuracy. Firstly, the statement regarding ‘translation of the Bible’ ignores the fact that the most prevalent understanding of inerrancy relates not to English translations, but to the original, inspired manuscripts—see, for example, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with exposition. Secondly, the author is using and supporting Wikipedia as respectable and factual source material; certainly New Scientist must realise synthesis is only as good as the source material it uses.
You can read the rest of this discussion of their transparent, simplistic attacks at "Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions, Mangling misotheists’ ignorant attacks on the Bible" here.

March 7, 2012

Strange Searches: Bad Movie

Again, maybe I'm being set up and someone is snickering about it. I've left obvious set-ups behind, but this one caught my attention because it sounds like a bad move. So, maybe it's real, maybe not:


By the way, the searcher landed on this page, so the search term was validated in a way.

March 5, 2012

Atheist Agendas and Non-Belief Fests

Buona sera. You've had atheists lie to you about not having an agenda, haven't you? Well, they want to evangelize us away from our faith. That's why I keep trying to encourage Christians to know how these people act, and to get into the Word. You can't stand up for the truth if you don't understand it, capice?

While attempting to destroy the faith of individuals (if you don't believe me, you're not an open Christian on Facebook or Twitter), they also want to destroy religion itself. Especially Christianity. Just ask Richard Dawkins about his hypocritical crusade destroy Christianity.

Of course, when we have events like "Question Evolution Day" in "The Question Evolution Project", the foundation of the atheist religion is threatened and they get really mean. Perhaps they'll be discussing this at their "Unreason Fest" or whatever that gathering is called. Yeah, dare to show flaws in evolutionism, and you can find out how "reasonable" they can be.

I still don't get it. Why do people get together to celebrate what they do not believe? Does your "lack of belief" motivate your actions? "I do not believe that the ChiComs are going to invade Brazil in the next few days, so I'm going to protest." Atheists will troll the sap out of Christians. Why? Because they "lack belief" in God. Like, duh! Norman the paranoid troll is about to say I'm lying again because he lacks belief in what I'm saying (snicker).


By the way, this has to be said: Many modern Internet atheists are not so much "freethinkers" and "rationalists" as they are "nonthinkers". That's right, I said it! I keep tripping them up in very basic logical fallacies. And dig this: Those terms like "freethinker" and "rationalist" (among others) are not only intended to be insulting to "believers", but they are based on the Genetic Fallacy! Genetic...origin...genesis... Being an atheist does not automatically make someone smarter or freer than anyone else. Working the other way, referring to themselves by these handles does not negate the intelligence or freedom of "believers". Worse, if evolution, the cornerstone of the atheist religion, were true, then we are all slaves to our brain chemistry and nobody is a "freethinker". Ha, ha!

Added: Did I mention their excessive egos? One misotheist was so angry, he started trolling remarks at one of my other sites! What is agonizing is his defense of illogic: "It's not a genetic fallacy if it's true". (I've seen it before where they have to defend their errors with more errors.) Thanks for helping prove me right, Poindexter! And you claim to be an educator? Oh, and I reported all of those ridiculous comments as spam.

While Matt Slick of CARM Radio was getting some technical difficulties straightened out, he was showing the absurdity of them having a gathering to celebrate their "lack of belief". I had to edit out the distractions.



March 3, 2012

Strange Searches: Obvious Intelligence

As always, there's a chance I'm being set up and some juvenile-minded individual will say, "Haw, haw! He went for it!" So be it, Soviet. On the other hand, it could be real and this inquirer has taste, discernment and obvious intelligence. I see that he landed at Piltdown Superman, a great place to begin searching for answers.



February 28, 2012

Unbelieving Funnies

The good ones (the polar bear,
Spock and the dorky cat)
were made by Kirk (The Captain).





"...because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes,
His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
(Romans 1:19-20, NASB)



Dawkins Disappoints His Master

Modern "science" (read: religious philosophies of evolutionism conflated to mean "science" and confuse people) is becoming a religion in its own right. Think about it. People rely on science to solve all their problems. After all true (observational and applied) science does exactly that, and gives people hope for a better future.

Richard "Daffy" Dawkins has been a pope of scientism, preaching the anti-gospel of evolutionism. This hardcore atheist believes that God does not exist, then conveniently hates him anyway. Playing off people's anger, confusion and bigotry is a great way to sell books, innit, Ricky? But that agnosticism crack is displeasing to his master.

Do you know how to make a scientist mad?  Try this some time.  Go up to a scientist and say that you believe the natural evidence of creation supports a scientific inference of a creator.  That is, explain that the abundant evidence of design in the universe and the world around you naturally leads you to believe there might be an intelligent designer.  Unless you happen to find one who practices the scientific method objectively, you will succeed in provoking the wrath of certainty from a dogmatic person who will lecture you on the difference between “science” and “religion”.

You will, in fact, create a mad scientist.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Oh, my servants, let me tell you one of my greatest kingdom secrets.  I’ve succeeded in making “science” the new world religion by carefully cultivating the discipline of science and the persona of scientists as being “objective” arbiters of truth.  Bias free, contemplating, rational minds inside humble bodies supporting white lab coats, dutifully doling out truth to the masses.
Read the rest of  "Atheists Make for Mad Scientists" here. Ha ha ha ha ha.

Subscribe in a reader