May 26, 2012

A Few Samples of Atheist Hate

This is so easy, I do not even bother with it very much. Abundance and all that.

First, a typical example. It was at (surprise!) an atheist's Weblog. Comment 1 was about me, Comment 2 was about a forthcoming book the atheist was publishing, Comment 3 was my reply to comment 1. I did not go back after I left my comment and took the screen shot (click for larger):
I wonder if he knows that The Question Evolution Project
has far more than 60 "Likes" on Facebook and is still growing.
Next is a real dandy! This atheopath was so full of hate, rage and utter stupidity, but not an ounce of logic. I could have filled the page with our go-arounds, but decided to select three samples. You can count the logical fallacies yourselves:

Here's the funny part. This exchange happened after I posted several examples of and links to atheistic bigotry. He denied reality (as they often do). Not too long ago, I had this ironic bit of confirmation of atheistic bigotry:

The hypocrisy of atheists is laughable. Hatred stupidifies. The ones who cry about slander and libel (read: telling the truth about them), are oblivious to their own libel or the fact that some of us document it. Read this "review" (the fool admitted that he did not even read the book, so he has no business posting in the review section) and see all of the sue-able nonsense yourself. More irrationality is here. If he ever had credibility, he set its remnants on fire and kicked it down the stairs himself. Alex Botten

Are Children Born Theist?

Edited 5-30-2016 and 4-12-2021

Buon giorno. In late 2010 and early 2011, I attracted the attention of a furious misotheist tinhorn who used one of the mantras that people of is type will copy and paste from other non-thinking atheist propaganda sites. Specifically, the claim that "children are born atheist, and learn theism later on". I called him on it; this is an unprovable assertion. Instead of offering evidence to support his fallacious assertion, he followed the Atheist Handbook™ and resorted to ridicule.

It appears that not only is the claim that "children are born atheist" a fallacy of assertion and completely unsupportable, the opposite may be true! Yep, children may be born theist.
Is atheism or theism more natural for human beings?

According to online author Tim Covell, “Everyone is born atheist. Religion is learned.” Over at the “rational response squad” you’re treated to the claim that “Many people don’t know it but everyone is born an Atheist, it’s not until a child has religious beliefs Pushed on them with out any evidence to support them that they “think” their [sic] a Theist.” David McAfee makes the same claim: “Now, the way I see it, everybody is born an atheist and, without submersion into religion as a child, we would most likely maintain that position…”  These are just examples. There are plenty more out there in the non-peer-reviewed pool of “intellectual diversity” that is the internet.

. . . To simply talk about what babies actually know is one thing – and something pretty uninteresting at that. What is more interesting is to talk about the kind of beliefs that babies – unaided by religious education – naturally form as their minds develop. It is here that comments like those above are quickly culled from the pool of those that can now make it to the level of scientific respectability. They are wrong – children are not natural atheists after all.
You can continue to be enlightened by reading the rest of "Born Atheists? Science and Natural belief in God". Note two things: I don't endorse the entire site or entire article, and that the main point is that the "born atheist" claim is shown to be false.  

May 21, 2012

"Tolerance" and "Coexist" Contradicted

These have been floating around in my Internet circles.

"Coexist"? Not likely. Here's why:

May 17, 2012

Politics, Religion, Emotion and Logic

Having been interested in political matters as well as spiritual, it gives me some interesting opportunities for observation. I am not saying that I'm unique and special in this area, but when I hang around with Biblical apologists, they do not seem to have much interest in politics, and vice versa. Things I have learned about logic and apologetics have applied to political rhetoric quite nicely.

There are a few things that I would like to explain to you, the viewing audience, to use during the rest of the American 2012 political season.

Learn some basics. I have some "Logic Lessons" (emphasizing informal logical fallacies) listed in the margin on this Weblog. Although they are focused on Christian apologetics and vituperative atheists have kindly supplied me with several excellent illustrations, the points made should translate to other areas, including politics. Also, there are links to other sites in those articles for further information on the logical fallacies. Even these should give you an excellent start, but you would do well to learn some basic laws of logic itself (such as noncontradiction, identity, excluded middle and that sort of thing). If you get ambitious, basic philosophy can be helpful.

We are not from the planet Vulcan. Yes, that's right, I'm going to appeal to Star Trek for an illustration. I had a difficult time suspending my disbelief that the Vulcans exchanged emotion for logic so thoroughly. It seemed that when they repressed their emotions constantly, it was a constant struggle to remain "logical" (to me, it was more clinical than anything else). In reality, we are emotional creatures. We have them, they are a gift from God, they enhance life. Further, we have our entrenched habits and worldviews. When emotions control us, then we have problems.

Sometimes, reasoning is quick. We have our experiences, memories, senses, learning, subconscious and so forth that can get us from Point A to Point K without seeming to make all the stops in between. A bloke hears a door close in the distance, pauses, someone else comes along and they may have collided if he had not stopped moving. He heard, remembered previous near-collisions, had a sense of timing and all that in a span of, say, two seconds. Edit: I forgot to add that I cannot instantly name every logical fallacy, and I do not expect that of others. (Especially when fallacies are compounded and blended!) But I can see when I'm being sold a bill of goods. This gives me reason to slow down and take a better look at what is being presented, if it is valid and so forth.

Strike a balance between intellectually analyzing things and our emotions. No need to act like a brute beast and let our emotions be in control. Nor should we become obsessed with our thought processes. Cut yourself some slack, because we cannot always think as clearly as we would like, and we will make mistakes.

Unfortunately, it seems that most people "think" with their emotions. In another article, I said that when people are attempting to persuade us to their viewpoint, they are often appealing to our emotions to some extent. Fine, that is a part of persuasion. We all do it.

But some types of people are willing to bypass logic and morality by attempting to manipulate emotions. This can take the form of the misotheist acting like a schoolboy who is angry over being disciplined by the headmaster and recruiting friends, "I hate 'im, you gotta hate 'im too!" Or when American leftists portray Republicans as evil people pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff. Both instances are ridiculous, but when people are caught up in hate and being fed empty rhetoric, this kind of thing discourages actual thought and is a play toward emotions.

I have watched and listened to political material and wanted to shout at the television, "Sean Hannity, you shouldn't let him get away with that...oops, another fallacy...Rush, you're not...wait, Mark Levin...he's giving you another red herring...stay on topic...Chris Plante, make him answer your question...arbitrary assertion, make her back it up...oh, nuts, now you're doing a fallacy, too..."

My idea is that if people took a step back ("got up on the hill") and saw the bigger picture, they could see the fallacies and appeals to emotion for what they are. Labels, unsubstantiated name-calling, derision, ridicule, bullying, loaded terminology added to bad reasoning can get someone motivated to be "on your side", but they did so without thinking things through.

I hope this simple overview can spark some thinking (and caution), especially in this manipulative political season.

May 16, 2012

I Lack Belief

Atheists play a disingenuous game of moving the goalposts by redefining the word "atheist". Instead of the established definition of "belief that there is no God or gods", it becomes, "I lack belief in a God or gods". That load of rubbish is insultingly transparent.

By the way, does a "lack of belief" motivate people to troll Christian sites under multiple and assumed names, protest Christian activities, write books and make lots of money, incessantly attack God and Christians on obscure and irrelevant Weblogs, hang out with other non-thinkers to brag about your logical fallacies &c? No, I didn't think so. Misotheists have a belief system, and something that motivates their worldview.

I heard a caller to a talk show bring this up the other day, and I thought I'd run with it. Yeah, two can play that "I lack belief so I have nothing to prove" game:

(Click for larger)
A follow-up article is here.

May 15, 2012

Should I Trust Joshua James?

Buona sera. I received an e-mail from my old pal Joshua James. And then he sent me "2nd Attempt" e-mail. It certainly is nice that he's persistent. He probably knows me and I rudely forgot about him, because he actually addressed me by name on one of my accounts where I conduct legitimate business.

Let's see... what are the problem areas?

Trust has to be earned. I learned from some of my associates this valuable lesson, that you don't give away too much trust too soon or you could end up taking a dirt nap, capice? Trust your instinct a little, but give trust slowly. This cafone hasn't done anything to earn my trust, since I never heard of the guy before. The only thing going for it is that my name is there, but he could have bought it from another of my business contacts or subscriptions.

Hotmail flagged it. Sure, I get stuff flagged all the time. That's why I check the spam filter.

I'm a member. Of what? I didn't join anything.

Click to access a download. I picked up an expression from my Cuban pal Tony Montana back when we were roommates as guests of the state, "What, are you nuts?" Leave the downloading of strange files from strange e-mails to others. You leave it alone.

His site is fishy. Using stealth technology, I checked it out a little bit. Not only is the site incomplete, but it has the promises of success. Ha! Josh should be learning from me about success!

International. This is from Canada. Although some of my best friends are Canadians (unlike a few years ago when some of us had an incident near the border), I don't like doing international business. It's hard to use legit means to come to a mutual understanding, and I hate sending Nicky and the boys all the way up there to make Joshie Boy understand reason.

Best approach? Leave it alone. Report it to the spam cops if you like, but don't ever click anything in strange stuff. For that matter, if you get e-mail from friends that doesn't look right, don't touch it. I've had junk from friends who got a trojan, and it sent e-mail in their names. Use protection, practice safe computing.
Click for larger view
Addendum: I am up to five spams from this cafone.

May 13, 2012

A Nemesis for Basement Cat

Did you think that Basement Cat's only nemesis was Ceiling Cat? Or my Bible? Really? I don't think so...

Subscribe in a reader