March 30, 2012

BULLY for Dawkins at (Un) Reason Rally

Buon giorno. I can't stand bullies. Partly because I endured it as a child. Now I intervene. Sometimes, I even give it back. Bullies should appreciate getting some of their own rotten treatment, capice? But right now, the best thing I can do is point out their foolishness and tell the truth about the angry misotheists and their "Me, too!" yap dogs that actually think that hatred is a valid form of logic.

What did we get at the so-called "Reason Rally?" Lots of whining, hypocrisy, appeals to emotion, rampant hatred, trashing of the vague "religion" boogieman — but nothing resembling actual "reason". Do you know how these kinds of atheists refute Christian logic? Just declare them wrong or find a rescuing device (an excuse) to get out of it; the conclusions reached do not agree with atheistic presuppositions. From there, many Internet atheists resort to bullying tactics. But not logic, because their logic is fundamentally flawed.

Atheists are the least-liked and least-trusted group. Do we really wonder why? Instead of working on their image and their conduct, Richard "Daffy" Dawkins incites mockery, ridicule — and even bullying. Nice going, Dick!
Richard Dawkins has done it again. And this time he has really placed atheists in a pickle. Do they follow the abusive admonition of one of their idols, and thereby reject reason; or do they continue to teach their children that bullying is wrong? Something has got to give here. With mentors like Dawkins, it's getting tougher and tougher in America for atheists to maintain a consistency between their doctrine and their practice.
The rally in Washington on Saturday was supposed to embolden atheists in their positions. Instead, it has created a real dilemma for atheists who hold personal convictions against bullying. How would Dawkins have atheists treat religious people in the public square? "Mock them, ridicule them in public." Ouch. That one will come back to bite him many times over.

March 28, 2012

Hypocrisy at the (Un) Reason Rally

Tweaked a few hours after posting.

Buona sera. I have had many experience in dealing with atheistic hypocrisy and double standards, so there is not much that surprises me. And yet, I am still amazed by how they cannot even see that they are being hypocritical.

There are times when atheists portray themselves as harmless people who never bother anyone, and simply do not believe the way theists believe. So...
  • It must not be the atheists that troll YouTube material by Christians with ridiculous and often obscene comments, and vote down the video
  • It must not be the atheists who troll Christian groups in Facebook
  • It must not be the atheists who troll Amazon and vote down Christian books that they have not read
  • It must not be the atheists who are protesting more and more, trying to secularize America
  • It must not be the atheists who are trying to get the teaching of creation science and Intelligent Design outlawed, and pressure lawmakers with misinformation campaigns
  • It must not be the atheists who write Weblogs misrepresenting Christians (especially creationists), with equivocation, arbitrary assertions and sometimes by flat-out lying
  • It must not be the atheists who are attacking creationists and saying that we are wrong, even though they have no idea what we actually believe and teach. Hint: try actually reading the material, watching the videos and so on without looking for any little excuse to typo-pounce or some other lame excuse to say, "Gotcha!" Actually pay attention to the message instead of embarrassing yourselves with such blatant misrepresentation
  • It must not be the atheists who are trolling Weblogs by Christians, trying to pick fights and leave nasty comments
  • It must not be the atheists who are trolling Christians (especially creationists) on Twitter for the same reasons
What utter hypocritical, childish rubbish.

I posted a modified image from "Family Guy" in an atheist forum (yeah, obnoxious of me, I know, but I was making a point). If you've seen the show, it's the one where a doctor determined that Peter was retarded. He had a chart. On top was "average", followed by "retarded" with Peter's name just below, followed by "creationists" at the bottom. I took Peter's name out and put in a picture of B. Hussein Obama where it says "retarded", and changed the bottom line to "atheists".


A hatetheist commented,
"Nice photoshop. Thankfully, I've seen this episode of Family Guy and know it actually says Creationists at the bottom. As to why Obama is there *shrugs*
Can't even make your own original jokes? Have to steal the 'atheist's'?"
First, it wasn't Photoshop, it was Second, "thankfully"? Who do you have to thank, anyway? More than that, why? Third, the Obama thing was in there because I felt like it, capice? Fourth and best, you flaming hypocrite, atheists are constantly modifying Christian art for the purposes of mockery! This strengthens my theory that atheists are intolerant of anyone questioning their sanity or making jokes; they can give them, but they can't take them.

The (Un) Reason Rally claimed that it was not there to ridicule "religion". And yet, they had a good time doing it. More than that, Richard "Daffy" Dawkins urged people to (wait for it...) mock the religious people. Here is more on his hypocrisy (article dated March 25, 2012):
At yesterday’s Reason Rally, the acknowledged headline speaker was the famous Richard Dawkins. And Dawkins, true to form, managed to display both hypocrisy and irrationality in the course of his fifteen minute speech.

To set the stage, let’s remember the promise the Reason Rally organizers made to us on their website:
Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?
No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years (and beyond) and motivating those in attendance to become more active. While speakers have the right to say what they wish, the event is indeed a celebration of secular values.
Read the rest of "The Hypocrisy of Richard Dawkins" here.

March 26, 2012

Logic Lessons: No True Atheist

Buona sera. OK, you caught me. The fallacy is actually called the "No True Scotsman", a term coined by atheist Antony Flew before he renounced atheism. 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 of resorting to the NTS fallacy because we say that someone was not really a Christian, they are being superficial and ignorant of the teachings of the Bible. We point out that someone may claim to be a Christian, but are not living in a manner consistent with Biblical teachings. Further, most Christians do not accept such people as one of ours. (The ridiculous abusive ad hominem and a Straw Man fallacies to insist that Hitler was a Christian, as if to negate all of Christianity, is beyond the pale, capice?) When we say that some people may claim to be Christians, but their words and conduct to not match the teachings of Scirpture — this is not resorting to the NTS fallacy. Rather, it is giving a fuller explanation why such accusations (i.e., "Hitler was a Christian") do not have merit.

But if you point out the NTS fallacy when atheists are guilty, watch out! I had an interesting encounter that illustrates this. Selected comments:
  • I said, " Westboro strikes me as a non-Christian cult. I would not associate with those people."
  • An angry atheist said, "Westboro Baptist Church, biblical literalists, are not Christians...I've heard it all now. Talk about no true Scotsman. No Christian is dropped faster than those that bring bad press."
  • A friend added, "OK, you want to lump Westboro in with Christians? When Christians who know their Bible, say that Westboro is not acting in accordance to the Bible? We have been through this! You do not like it AT ALL when we call Stalin a true atheist. You do all kinds of gymnastics to distance yourself from the atrocities of atheist regimes, but you do not hesitate to throw in false religion in with true Christianity. What a double standard."
  • Angry atheist number two said, "Say Stalin was an atheist all you like. It's when you start saying he did what he did BECAUSE of his atheism you start being wrong."
  • Angry atheist number three chimed in, "Stalin didn't hold up a book about atheism while he was yelling at gay people." 
Note the additional logical fallacies to justify their "No True Atheist" fallacy! First, to say that the atheism of the greatest mass-murderers of all time had nothing to do with their actions is ludicrous even on the surface. But, if you want evidence:

That last comment ("Stalin didn't hold up a book about atheism while he was yelling at gay people") was amazingly absurd, equivocating the murderous rampages of atheist tyrants with Christianity. Also, it was a Straw Man argument.

Edit: Author S.E. Cupp is considered a bad atheist (or not a "true atheist") because she is not vicious; it's the opposite direction for the fallacy. Click here for a shining example of the "No True Atheist" fallacy.

The lessons here are to (obviously) be careful of someone making excuses so that they can insist on their arbitrary pronouncement. The second is to make certain that we are not guilty of making the same error ourselves. And Christians do not need to be intimidated by unwarranted accusations.

March 25, 2012

Are Atheists Control Freaks?

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. First, what are your impressions of the article, Bob? Give me a quick summary and your opinion on it."

Notice how he tried to flip the thing back onto me? Do not want. See, atheists (and evolutionists) like this must control the conversation and the subject. Later, he was demanding my summary of the article.

I replied, "
You tried to turn my challenge around on me, and I'm not having it. All I did was challenge people to read and attempt to discredit the science at, and you demanded that I write an article summary so 'we can discuss it'. Why? So you can argue with ME about what the author said? Get real. Atheists are such control freaks and manipulators." Yes, I admit to being a bit irked.

That's right, I let him know that I was not only annoyed at the attempt at manipulation, but I was not fooled by it. His next response was, "If I wanted to spend my life debunking creationist websites, I'd start my own blog. I'm more interested in discussion with people, not articles." Nice attempt to save the wounded dignity.

First, I am expected to let the atheist take control. Then, I am supposed to discuss an article. The hilarious part was that he implied that he had the ability to debunk the linked articles on anthropology, astronomy, paleontology, microbiology, biology, astrophysics, geology, biometrics, genetics, eugenics, logic, and more. I have seen similar bluster before, and receive hot air in response. I ask them why they are afraid of reading such material. Perhaps they will see that atheism, materialism, uniformitarianism, naturalism and other presuppositions fail miserably as worthwhile explanations. I can hope that they will see the truth of Psalm 53.1-3, Prov. 1.7 and Romans 1.20-22. If they will drop their misotheist presuppositions and honestly listen, there is still a chance that they can learn about the love of God and the sacrifice of Christ.

March 17, 2012

Societal Devolution Accelerates

"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 God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,  (Romans 1:18-22, RSV)
"Well, sure, Uncle Bob, we know that. Evidence for creation is all around, so the atheist is lying to himself when he says that he "lacks belief" or "lacks evidence" for the existence of God. You keep telling us."
There is something more that I want you to see. Keep going:
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. (Romans 1:22-25, RSV)
Notice that "God gave them up".

Albert Barnes said this:
He abandoned them, or he ceased to restrain them, and suffered them to act out their sentiments, and to manifest them in their life. This does not imply, that he exerted any positive influence in inducing them to sin, any more than it would if we should seek, by argument and entreaty, to restrain a headstrong youth, and when neither would prevail, should leave him to act out his propensities. and to go as he chose to ruin. It is implied in this,
(1)    That the tendency of man was to these sins;
(2)    That the tendency of idolatry was to promote them; and,
(3)    That all that was needful, in order that people should commit them, was for God to leave him to follow the devices and desires of his own heart; compare Psalm 81:12; 2 Thess 2:10, 2 Thess 2:12.
So, in effect, God says, "Have it your way, let your own nature come to the fore", capice?
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Romans 1:26-32, RSV)
Lusts become consuming and are the masters instead of the objects of desire. More than that, I believe that the ability to think is worn away. Some people call this the "noetic effect of sin". I have seen it in action. Atheists who hate God and his people so much will be so consumed by their hatred and rage that they cannot follow basic logic (documented elsewhere on this Weblog). Further, misotheists do not "police their own", but rather, applaud angry misuses of logic:

"...they not only do them but approve those who practice them".
By the way, Skippy, compare the incomes of Dawkins, Myers, Harris and the like to the creationists.
Oh, and you spelled your hero's name wrong.

One place that the devolution of the misotheistic evolutionist mind is readily apparent is in the area of abortion. Social Darwinism becomes utilitarian. God's Word brings light (Psalm 119.130). God's people are standing in the way of depravity running even more rampant than it does now.
We have often provided evidence for the full humanity of the unborn child right from conception (i.e. fertilization of egg by sperm). And while still in the womb, children develop the ability to feel pain and even to plan their future, and are considered to be patients. Individual life is a continuum from conception to natural death. Birth changes nothing intrinsically about the nature of that life, just location and mode of respiration (from placenta to lungs).
This is one vital matter on which to decide the abortion issue, because murder applies only to human victims, not to the removal of a tumor or wart. The evidence for the humanity of the unborn has thus convinced many that abortion is wrong, since they disapprove of murder. For the same reason, most pro-abortion politicians don’t even dare to admit that the baby is human; they lie about it being a ‘blob of cells’, or obfuscate about it with feigned ignorance about the nature of the unborn, and quips that the question of where life begins is ‘above my pay grade.’ Never mind that the onus of proof is on the pro-abortionists to show that it’s not human life. If we didn’t know whether a body was live or dead, we would never bury it—we would give the benefit of the doubt to life.
Read the rest of the devolved mindset of Myers and others in the rest of "Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide", here.

March 14, 2012

Making Stuff Readable

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 "Read Later" button. Naturally, I like the "Send to Kindle" button. Unfortunately, it failed occasionally by cutting off part of the requested article, and it did not render some items as well as some of the "Send this thing to the Kindle" add-ons that I discussed in this article. (To be fair, none of them render everything perfectly. "SendtoReader" is the most consistent, but "Kindle It" does very well, too, except for certain sites. But the other two never cut off articles on me.) In the screen shot below (which did not capture my pointer), you can see that your saved articles can be shared to the big social media outlets as well, and you can e-mail articles from right there, using the e-mail address that you used when you signed up.

I don't see the need for all of the ways they provide for you to send an article to your list. But so what? You might find something that I don't need to be indispensable, capice? So, tinker with it and find out what you like. Even though I don't feel that I can rely on Readability's "Send to my Kindle" function, this service does have several things going for it and is worth checking out.

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.

Subscribe in a reader