September 1, 2013

Atheists Embarrassed by Atheists

A recent article by an atheist is getting some attention. He does not appreciate the actions of his brethren. I'll come back to this later.

Several times in the past, I have documented my experiences and observations, and those of others, regarding militant atheists. Interestingly, they play the victim by saying that Christians persecute atheists! That is the opposite of the truth 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Christians are defenders of the rights of people to believe (and disbelieve) without coercion to convert.

When I inquired of others about the "old days" of my experience, when most atheists were "live and let live", with an attitude of, "I do not believe, you do, we can discuss it or not, whatever", some people say that they are like Muslims: Nice at first, but when they gain power, watch out. And don't you dare question evolution! There were not many atheopaths in my experience in the early 1970s, but I remember Scott. He was a pseudo-intellectual attention whore, bragging about his alleged suicide attempts and reading Nietzsche. One time, he ranted that all Christians should be burned at the stake. Strong talk for a nutty 15-year-old, but I pretty much wrote it off; he was no threat to anyone.

Images are "Fair Use" for educational purposes.

Today, we have atheists wanting Christians killed:

They take the advice of Richard "I Hide From Debating Creationist Scientists Like Bill Nye Does" Dawkins, and approve of ridicule:

Lying is allowed and applauded on Planet Atheopath:


In all this, many modern militant misotheists maintain that they stand for "reason" and "logic", but do precious little to successfully engage in those activities. Atheist Brendan O'Neill wrote an article for The Telegraph, expressing his own displeasure. He has some interesting insights.

But there are a couple of problems in it. First, he still could not resist the urge to throw in a cheap shot about the Bible that was irrelevant to the discussion: 
This week we've been treated to new scientific research claiming to show that atheists are cleverer than religious people. I say scientific. I say research. It is of course neither; it's just a pre-existing belief dolled up in rags snatched from various reports and stories. Not unlike the Bible. But that hasn't stopped the atheistic blogosphere and Twitterati from effectively saying, "See? Told you we were brainier than you Bible-reading numbskulls."
I don't know if Mr. O'Neill claims to be unbiased like many other atheists, but his bias shows up here.

Also, he insists on the new, convenient redefinition of atheism, "lack of belief":
So, what’s gone wrong with atheism? The problem isn’t atheism itself, of course, which is just non-belief, a nothing, a lack of something. Rather it is the transformation of this nothing into an identity, into the basis of one’s outlook on life, which gives rise to today’s monumentally annoying atheism. The problem with today’s campaigning atheists is that they have turned their absence of belief in God into the be-all and end-all of their personality. Which is bizarre. Atheism merely signals what you don’t believe in, not what you do believe in.
He is on the right track, as I have seen too many Christophobes on their anti-God jihads, making their alleged "lack of belief" their reason for being. The "lack of belief" thing is a cop-out. The real, established definition of atheism is a denial of the existence of God.

O'Neill has some flaws, but his exasperation with many other atheists is understandable. Some just want to go about their business, but too many others are reinforcing the public opinion that atheists are the least-liked, least-trusted group in America. And probably many other places. Take a look at his article and see.

August 13, 2013

The "Hitler was a Christian" Slander

“What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right?
I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” 
—Richard Dawkins

Sounds just like many modern atheists today. This quote is from Table Talk.
For some reason, many atheists want to "give" Adolph Hitler to Christianity. "Hitler was a Christian!", they gloat. But that is the opposite of the truth.

"He said he was a Christian, Cowboy Bob!"

Ummm...yeah. How often do you believe politicians, especially those that have murdered millions of people and were obvious maniacs? Get that? He was a politician, striving for power. Also, who was Jesus to him, what was God, what was Christianity to him? The same problem exists with many atheists today — they redefine the terms to suit their own ends.

I have some ideas on why Christophobes try to pretend that Hitler was a Christian. First, to make the atrocities of the greatest mass murderers of history, the atheists Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot and so on, seem — well, not so bad, really. Second, it's one of the weird stretches of atheistic logic that I've encountered: "Hitler was a Christian, so Christianity is bad, so there is no God!" No, not in those words, but pretty doggone close. Third, it's motivated by hate, and they'll find any excuse, no matter how stupid and easily disproved, to say something bad about Christians.

Here are some articles for your perusal. Take a special look at the dishonest comments by Fergus at the bottom of the article, and how he's soundly trounced at "Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions — The Darwin–Hitler connection".

Next, "Hitler Was Not a Christian: Refutation of Atheist Slander".

After that, "Was Hitler a Christian?"

Then you can read "Did Hitler Rewrite the Bible?"

New: "The 'Hitler was a Christian' Mythos.

If you have time for something even longer, go to "From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist - Responding to Richard Dawkins on the Issue of Atheism, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Communism and Nazism"

You really should bookmark this page and share it with those people who show their ignorance and bigotry by saying that Hitler was a Christian.

We also have a video to see, and it has a great challenge to fundamentalist atheists:

And for those who think this is the "No True Scotsman"'re dead wrong:

August 6, 2013

Atheism and Fallacies

One of my favorite topics is logical fallacies. Many atheists and evolutionists love to attack Christians and creationists, claiming that they believe in "reason". They demonstrate that they do not understand even rudimentary logic, and it turns out that Christians use logic better than their attackers! And why not? The laws of logic come from God. Since the atheistic worldview is fundamentally flawed, irrational and self-refuting, when an atheist and/or evolutionist uses logic, he or she is tacitly admitting that his or her worldview does not work, and has to borrow from the biblical creationist's worldview!

Plato and Aristotle doing philosophy and logic stuff.

Even when we show atheists that they are being illogical, it must be in the Atheist Code© to never admit that a Christian is correct over something of consequence. Instead, they increase their attacks. Many times, in very sneaky ways.
The atheist worldview is one that revolves around denial of the self evident, including denial of God's existence, denial of creation, denial of absolute truth and certainty, denial of objective morality, denial of life only from life, denial of information (only) from intelligence, etc. This denial often carries over into debate and discussion on worldview issues. Namely, when an atheist is called out on fallacious argumentation (amidst discussion), they'll often employ a variety of unscrupulous tactics in an attempt to either mask or justify their (faulty) reasoning. That is to say, they'll employ fallacious reasoning in an attempt to deny the fallacious nature of the argument. Here we take a look at some of the specific tactics employed in this regard:
You can finish reading this article by sneaking over to "Fallacies about Fallacies".

July 28, 2013

Atheism, Libel, Cowardice and (ir) RationalWiki

Most of the Internet atheists that I have encountered are big and bold about being "rational". But they are not content to believe that they are smarter than us st00pid dumb Xtians. No, they need to troll and attack people. (I fully believe that many do this because they are simply childish bullies attempting to bolster their egos.) For example, this gem appeared at "The Question Evolution Project":
This was a simple-minded attack, incorporating Bunches-o-Fallacies® and emotionalism, but no rational thought. They like to offer opinions based on titles, introductions and summaries, but usually ignore entire articles and supporting links.

I have said before that I can see no valid reason for demonizing Christians (and especially creationists). Such immature behavior not only helps illustrate the natural failings of the religion of atheism, but increases the negative public perception of atheists. Indeed, these irrational and emotion-driven atheists make their own "poes". The libelous hate speech site (ir) RationalWiki does not use reason. Instead, any child with an agenda can use this as a way to attack people instead of using an intellectual approach to deal with issues. Those who have the time and interest to squash annoying insects can do so. Or we can hire lawyers for defamation. Richard Dawkins, the atheist hate monger and their equivalent of America's race baiter Al Sharpton, has famously avoided debates with William Lane Craig and with Bible-believing creationists. (His vituperative bullying has begun to put people off; he has failed, and a few atheists with some sense are showing some civility.) But we still have to deal with Dawkinsites who want to sound big and bad, but are "all hat, no cattle".

Many atheists tell us that they're brilliant because they're atheists (a logical fallacy right there), but they will not back up their claims. The ones who want to debate should follow through and make a defense for atheism. If I was an atheist, I'd be embarrassed by these types. F'rinstance:
That's right, (ir)RationalWiki ran away
Let's focus on that last one. That den of defamation was issued a challenge to debate the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" from Creation Ministries International. (My haters are furious that CMI saw fit to use my video on their site, by the way.) It's not something that can be quickly dismissed by using canned responses and throwing links from propaganda sites like Talk.Origins. No, people actually have to put some effort into it.

If I'm reading it right, (ir)RationalWiki editor Fergus "Brave Sir Robin" Mason lost an initial debate with VivaYeshua (he's fared badly elsewhere). When reason reared its head, "he bravely turned his tail and fled". Fergus Mason was challenged, accepted and then backed down. Click here to read more.

Der Narr spricht in seinem Herzen:
»Es gibt keinen Gott!«
Sie handeln verderblich, und abscheulich ist ihr Tun;
da ist keiner, der Gutes tut.

July 20, 2013

Atheism, Satanism and Dawkins

It is not an easy religion to adopt in a society ruled so long by Puritan ethics. There is no false altruism or mandatory love-thy-neighbor concept in this religion. Satanism is a blatantly selfish, brutal philosophy. It is based on the belief that human beings are inherently selfish, violent creatures, that life is a Darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest, that only the strong survive and the earth will be ruled by those who fight to win the ceaseless competition that exists in all jungles - including those of urbanized society. Abhor this brutal outlook if you will; it is based, as it has been for centuries, on real conditions that exist in the world we inhabit rather than the mystical lands of milk and honey depicted in the Christian Bible.
— Burton H Wolfe, Second Introduction to The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey

A Satanist practices the motto, "If a man smite thee on one cheek, smash him on the other!" Let no wrong go unredressed.

Satanism encourages its followers to indulge in their natural desires. Only by doing so can you be a completely satisfied person with no frustrations which can be harmful to yourself and others around you. Therefore, the most simplified description of the Satanic belief is: indulgence instead of abstinence.
— Anton LaVey

"Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you."
. . .
“Mock them, ridicule them in public, don’t fall for the convention that we’re far to polite to talk about religion,” a frustrated Dawkins continued, “Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe, which need to be substantiated.  They should be challenged and ridiculed with contempt.”

— Clinton Richard Dawkins on two different occasions

Previously, I have written about common elements between atheism and Satanism. I must specify again that this is regarding LaVey's Satanism, and not the idiots who sacrifice helpless animals (or even humans) to Satan. LaVey did not believe that Satan was an actual being. His Satanism emphasized self-gratification. Indeed, Aleister Crowley "Great Beast 666" restated an old expression as, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". (Yes, he was a Satanist of sorts: "It seems I possessed a theology of my own, which was to all intents and purposes, Christianity.  My Satanism did not interfere with it at all.") Since they are essentially hedonists, is there any doubt that a Satanist will deceive in order to attain his own ends?

Anton LaVey attempted to make Satanism respectable and intellectual, and drew heavily from atheist Ayn Rand. Atheists are famous for their pseudo-intellectual posturing and sneering that they are somehow more intelligent than "theists". But while proclaiming to believe in "reason", they use abundant logical fallacies, childish name-calling, profanities, and outright lies in order to achieve their own ends. Sexual harassment is a problem in the atheist "community", which would not be surprising from a Satanist seeking his own pleasure.

In the quote at the beginning of this article, Burton Wolfe indulged in prejudicial conjecture (misleading assertions without knowledge or support) so he could affirm Satanism and misrepresent what the Bible teaches. Richard Dawkins does this kind of thing, and Dawkinsites repeat his ex cathedra pronouncements without actually thinking about them. Indeed, he uses logical fallacies and even demonstrates his own lack of knowledge about the nature of science in his efforts to destroy Christianity. It is readily apparent in his blatant hypocrisy cited earlier.

"Why would anyone want to destroy Christianity, Cowboy Bob?"

The oldest lies came from the beginning of creation. First, "Did God really say..." followed by a distortion of what God said. Then, "You shall be like God" (Genesis 3.1,5).

Modified from morgueFile/luisrock62
The sin of Lucifer was pride. Satanists reject God and embrace their selfish desires through pride. Atheists pretend that God does not exist, and bow down to "reason" and "science", using self-serving redefinitions of those words and of "reality" as well. For that matter, many liberal "Christians" weasel their way out of believing what the Bible says so that they can do what they will. People have been blinded by the lies of Satan (2 Cor. 4.4), and want to become their own gods. Thinking they're clever, they fall for the lies of the Great Deceiver. No wonder they wish to destroy the truth.

June 6, 2013

Atheism, the Bible and Subjective Morality

One of the most simplistic and annoying tricks that atheists pull is their unwillingness to answer questions about knowledge and morality. When pressed, they resort to dodging the question, throwing the question back in the face of the one asking, denying what they said, use logical fallacies, accuse others of fallacies and more (this MP3 is a good example). I believe the reason for such behavior is simple: They know that God's ultimate standard is true, but do not want to face it. However, their subjective morality is fundamentally flawed and will self-destruct. Attempting to blame God and make him the bad guy by quote mining the Bible is a massive fail. So is attempting to place your own arbitrary, subjective morality on God.

When the atheist is pinned down on the absurdity of subjective morality and has nowhere left to turn, often he'll attempt to point the finger right back at supposed problems with Biblical morality. But there are numerous overarching logical problems with this tactic:

1. It is an attempt to skirt the real issue at hand, which is that objective knowledge of good and evil (knowledge that we all share) cannot be accounted for in the material worldview.

2. More formally, it is a fallacious "Tu Quoque" argument (a.k.a., "the you too argument"). A Tu Quoque is defined as: "A retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others." In this context, the fallacy comes by implying that "Biblical morality is no better!" Once again, this is a fallacious appeal because it doesn't deal with the issue at hand - the fact that objective morals exist.

3. "Objective morality" by definition entails moral knowledge that is not a matter of human opinion, decision, etc. So right from the start it should be plainly understood that Biblical morality entails "external, binding laws," while the atheist has no rational basis whereby he can assert that anything is right or wrong, good or evil. That is to say, there is no way to attain real "moral truth" in the material worldview.

4. It is self refuting for the atheist to claim that any given "act of God" is wrong (such as commanding the Israelites to destroy the wretchedly evil Amalekites in Old Testament times), because the atheist has to presuppose objective morality in order to do so.

Despite these points, the atheist may persist in (fallaciously) arguing that Biblical morality is "also subjective and thereby problematic" because of God's actions described in the Old Testament. The atheist's challenge generally goes something like this:

"There is no objective morality in the Biblical worldview either! God commands Israelites to murder innocent women and slaughter babies! So on one hand god says, 'You Shall Not Murder,' while on the other hand he commands murder and genocide! Therefore, how would you know when something is actually wrong? ...If god told me to go out and start killing children, why would my actions be wrong?"

Here are specific rebuttals to this type of atheistic argument:
Not so fast, Fritz. You'll have to read the rest at the source, "Biblical Morality".

May 27, 2013


Some of us have not forgotten. Some of us still respect those who fought, and fight, for our freedoms.

Look what we can do when we get together  
And give support to those on the lines
It's our sons and daughters, our sisters and brothers 

Let's show them we cared if they lived or died

In this land of freedom there's riots in the streets all in the name of peace

If we stand in unity, we'll win with dignity 
Our strength has said it all, pray and believe

The wars through the ages have taken so many lives 
I think of their faces and the fear in their eyes
With hearts made of courage and souls filled with fire 

Those who fight for their freedom, let's lift their names higher

In this land of freedom there's riots in the streets all in the name of peace  

If we stand in unity, we'll win with dignity 
Our strength has said it all, pray and believe

Subscribe in a reader