Stormbringer's Thunder

Buon girono. It is interesting that the people who insist on "tolerance" are often the least tolerant themselves. In fact, the word "tolerance" has come to mean, "You must accept my viewpoint, sexual preference, lifestyle, belief system or whatever as equal in validity to anything else". But if you disagree, they do not "tolerate" in the established definition of the word, capice? The Gaystapo is intolerant of Christians, and tries to force their viewpoint on others. Case in point: A gay rights group demonstrated at Oklahoma Baptist University on Wednesday as part of an ongoing project to advance acceptance of homosexuality in religious organizations. Marty O'Gwynn, assistant to the president of Oklahoma Baptist University, told The Christian Post that the Soulforce participants were not given permission to demonstrate on campus. But he also noted that the protesters were peaceful. O'Gwynn said that OKBU does not have any homosexual

April Fool on me, the auto-post failed. This was scheduled at 12.01 AM Eastern Time. "Now you're just being downright nasty! As if telling the truth is bad enough, now you're doing name-calling!" Simmer down, Selma. It's one of the search terms in my site meter that shows how people came to my site. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a set-up and someone is laughing because I used it, but big deal. For me to use a broad, sweeping generalization that "all atheists are idiots" because I thought the ones I met qualify for that classification would be to commit a hasty generalization fallacy . Further, to call someone an idiot is erroneous in the first place. Although the meaning has changed over the years, at one time, it meant that someone had an IQ of about 30, and a mental age of a three-year-old or less. It is no longer used as a designation. Now it is just a way to call someone stupid. But I digress. When looking at groups of people, you g

Buona sera. Reports from the (Un) Reason Rally of atheists (a religious gathering to celebrate that they hate religions and do not believe in anything, go figure). The hypocrisy of the rally and especially of Dawkins is documented. Their intolerance of others had been made abundantly clear (again), as is the encouragement to engage in bullying . Not that they needed encouragement, capice? Some of us have been pointing out that these people who claim to love reason, logic and so on are not very good at those very things. The rally did not have arguments in favor of atheism. Instead, just anti-Christian invective and empty rhetoric. I'll mention intolerance again for emphasis. In a discussion at Evidence 4 Faith 's March 25, 2012 podcast, Keith Kendrix had several guests in the studio who attended the rally. I found it to be very interesting, and suggest that it is well worth an hour of your time. You can click on the link above and go to the "Podcasts" link, or d

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.

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

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