Stormbringer's Thunder

Okay, you caught me. The fallacy is actually called the " No True Scotsman ", a term coined by atheist Antony Flew before he became a Deist or something. This fallacy is a darling of atheists who use it incorrectly against Christians. NTS is not an actual fallacy per se , but rather an illustration of other fallacious thinking, such as "moving the goalposts". Simply stated, the claim is made about someone's actions or character. When an exception is found, it is waved off because the person is not genuinely part of the group: No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge. But Angus MacDonald puts sugar in his  porridge! Aye, but no true  Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge. It is simple enough. Someone makes an assertion. When an exception to that assertion is made, an excuse is made to counter the exception. When used against Christians, it is often incorrect, arbitrary and superficial, ignoring important elements about Christianity . When we are accused

Revised 8-20-2012. Buon giorno. I have been wanting to call CARM Radio and ask Matt Slick if he supports my hypotenuse hypothesis: Atheists are control freaks. I have had several instances of control freakness that cause me to wonder if it is more than just a couple of individuals that indulge. My latest experience is typical, so here we go. An atheist decided to try to get to me by insulting my creation science Weblog . (Yeah. Playing the Ridicule Card or otherwise attempting to insult and hurt someone is a frequent opening gambit in lieu of actual thought.) I told him (her?) that it's a Weblog . There are links to assorted articles, many of which are of a technical nature. I dared him (her?) to actually read and debunk the science on the site. So, I rejected his insult and essentially told him to "put up or shut up". Eventually, he said that he would "have a glance at it". Then I received, " Okay, had a read through the first section. Firs

"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

Buon giorno.  It's time for Uncle Bob to dazzle you with his profound wisdom and intellect. Instead, I want to keep things light but still edjamakate you on something useful. There is a site called " Readability " (who does not know that I exist, let alone that I am writing about them). Either they became ambitious over the past couple of years, or I just plain missed what they were doing. Originally, I knew about their bookmarklet where you could convert a Web page (especially a Weblog page) into something less cluttered and more, well, readable , on your browser. But they do much more than that, even when you click on the bookmarklet. Not only can you adjust the colors to make the thing easier on your eyes, but there are options to "Send to Kindle" as well as "Read Later", among others. Readability will let you sign up for free or paid accounts, and you can keep track of your reading material in one place using the e-mail feature or "Rea

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), r

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.