July 28, 2014

Logic Lessons: Arguing from Silence

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

In a previous "Logic Lesson", I touched on the Argument from Silence, but I forgot that I did it! Diddly dur hay. Anyway, this is a more complete treatment.

Arguments from silence, like other fallacies, have some clear-cut examples that are easily identifiable. The basic form is that if someone does not answer a question or give a response, it is taken as confirmation that the other person is right. Unfortunately, I do not have screenshots of one of my favorite examples. An atheopath on Twitter was attacking me for something or other, and I had better things to do (such as watching television). When I came back to Twitter, I realized that I had lost a "debate". The guy had been firing of questions and comments. Because he did not get responses from me, he declared victory for himself — I lost a debate that I did not know I had!

Here is another one. It was posted in a forum, and I found out that it was e-mailed to me from a spammer-stalker who knows that I have blocked him from my e-mail:
"Oh, and his total FAILURE to answer my question below* proves that Bob Sorensen is a liar, full stop. . . . *I am afraid that silence from Bob will be taken to indicate that he is unable to do this, and that he makes untruthful statements about opponents that he cannot subsequently defend - thus I would advise him against ignoring this challenge."
He is adding several manipulative conditions on the failure to respond. Edit: He read this, but obvious did not learn, and was kind enough to provide another example, here.

One more, and it is a challenge because it is complicated:

Sorry about the image quality, I was quite unskilled in screenshots back then. Anyway, Norman the Paranoid Troll (long-time readers, do you remember him?) is using a weird combination of argument from silence and the either/or fallacy. By deleting his posted comments, the site owner admits that followers of Jesus lie and kill. "If you do not agree, be honest and let them stand", which has the either/or fallacy of "If you do not let these comments stand, you are not honest". Very manipulative and despicable. And yet, the spammer-stalker quoted above this screen shot makes Norman seem almost sane.

On a side note (and I think I've said this before), if someone is going to say, think, write evil about you, there is nothing you can do to stop him. When the antagonist is non compos mentis, just laugh and move on. Unless it is actual libel, the consider legal action like I am doing.

Along with other fallacies, the argument from silence can blend and overlap with other fallacies (as we just saw). Also like other fallacies, the argument from silence can actually be valid on occasion when used with other evidence which is valid, and is not a fallacy in those instances. In my examples, I did not feel like indulging the critics who were making the demands. If I had made a claim and was challenged but did not respond, the other party might be justified in being suspicious. (Refusal to accept clear evidence does not count.) But such a use of argument from silence as valid evidence is tricky, so never mind about that now.

Yet again like other fallacies, it can take different forms.

What I am going into now is not the argument from silence per se, but I think these are forms of it. To say something like, "There's no point in reporting it to Maintenance, they won't do anything anyway", or, "I'm not going to read that creation science stuff, I know what they're going to say" have some things in common with the argument from silence. (I think there may be a bit of the appeal to motive fallacy mixed in as well.) To me, these are just excuses to avoid taking action or learning something. Plus, precognition and clairvoyance are not generally accepted in discussions of logic.

Part of a tantrum regarding The Question Evolution Project on Facebook

The adage applies, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Be on guard against someone who tries to pull a fast one by using an argument from silence, since it is a way to bully people into doing things and can lead to nonsensical "victories". Also, be careful that you do not do this yourself in a casual or manipulative manner.

Here is a good article on the basics of the argument from silence.

July 17, 2014

Why Can't Atheists Find God?

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

The simple answer to the question of why atheists cannot find God is that they really do not want to find him. However, that raises several other questions and issues.

Many times, atheists claim to have rejected belief in God because of reason (as if theists somehow were automatically irrational because of their beliefs, which is a logical fallacy right there, and many atheists frequently demonstrate a grasp of basic logic). If they had used some of the logic they claim to like, they would be confronted with some problems that they cannot escape. Atheists cannot account for logic itself, and they are unable to answer the question of existence. Although some think that evolution solves some problems and helps them become intellectually fulfilled, evolution is a failure. Materialists have attempted to scientifically locate a place for free will and the soul in the brain, and they try but fail to account for morality through evolution. The truth is that atheism is irrational and incoherent, and does not deal with the big issues of human existence. Only biblical Christianity can do that.

"Prove to me God exists!"


The Bible makes it clear that people have the evidence that they need (Romans 1.18-22). In fact, it seems like common sense to say, "Just look around". But many atheists want scientific evidence for the existence of God. It is a logical fallacy to want material proof for God, who is spirit and outside the limitations of time and space. Everyone knows that God exists, but want to justify their rebellion against God. If you want to really rebel, rebel against your father, the one who controls the establishment (John 8.44, 2 Corinthians 4.4).

"But if God should prove to me that he exists with a miracle!"

Haven't you been paying attention? You already have the evidence you need... Let me show you something else. Atheists have been asked, "If I gave you the kind of proof that you want, would you serve God?", and the answers have often been, "No". Also, what makes you so special? God has explained himself (John 1.14, 2 Peter 1.16-19). You have no business demanding anything from the Creator of the universe, and he doesn't have to jump through hoops to please anyone. He doesn't even have to have anything to do with sinful humanity (Romans 3.23, Romans 6.23), as we are all sinners and deserve Hell (Matthew 25.41, Luke 16.23-24, Matthew 13.42, Revelation 20.13-15). We don't have to go there. God made provision for us through Jesus Christ (John 1.12, John 5.24, 2 Corinthians 5.17, Galatians 3.26, 1 John 3.2, Revelation 21.3-4).

Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to discuss things and give evidence. But I am not going to "prove that God exists" and contradict God's Word.

Just suppose, for the sake of discussion, that God decided that you were going to get a special privilege and see a miracle. Would you believe? There were disciples of Jesus who had seen him after he had risen, yet some still doubted (Matthew 28.17). Miracles are not a guarantee that someone will believe. Belief in God is not a matter of intellect or evidence. For every evidence presented, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device; people keep trying to justify their unbelief. No, it is a matter of the spirit, not proof or evidence. Why do you think atheists and evolutionists hate biblical creationists so much? We speak the truth without compromise.

Although the Bible contains numerous examples of miraculous events leading to faith and repentance in the lives of people, it is clear from biblical history that miracles are not always a reliable cure for a hardened unbelief.

The topic of proving God’s existence has been discussed and analyzed many times. In 1985 a popular debate on this subject was held between Reformed theologian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein. Stein was asked what would “constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?” He answered, “If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.” What if an even greater miracle happened? Would you believe in God if He showed up at your door?
You can read the rest by clicking on "Proving God’s Existence — Would You Believe If He Showed Up at Your Door?"

June 28, 2014

The Other Anti-Christian "F-Word"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Because humans are complicated beings, we respond to a number of different stimuli. Some are at very basic reflex and chemistry levels, such as "fight or flight". At the other end of the spectrum, we can intelligently consider various pieces of information and arrive at reasonable conclusions.

Somewhere in the middle is the complication of emotions. Although they can respond to logic when recognized and a decision is made to bring them under control, they often arise unbidden. People have been "thinking" through their emotions for a very long time; I believe it is worse now than it used to be. There are people who want to manipulate others through emotions (whether deliberately or intentionally), and we need to be on guard against such tactics. That is one reason I wrote a series about common logical fallacies. By recognizing fallacies and the way so many are based on appeals to emotions, we are less likely to fall for tricks, and can improve our own thinking processes. But we are people, after all, and emotions are a part of what makes us human.

Keep in mind that there is a fine line between influencing and manipulating. Manipulation tries to remove someone's choice and bypass their reasoning abilities. Influencing can have an emotional appeal, but respects people enough to let them make their decisions without trickery.

One of the simplest appeals to emotion for the purpose of manipulation is labeling or name-calling. Many words have connotations (secondary meanings in addition to the actual meaning), and many of those are emotionally-laden. Labels can be useful as reference points in dealing with people, especially for those who label themselves. Definitions are often vitally important, and people may need to clarify what they mean with labels. I am a Christian and a biblical creationist. How you understand those words and relate to me may be different from my understanding of them.

Labels are often assigned to people as ad hominem attacks, and are also used to poison the well. Misotheists and anti-creationists often want to silence the opposition, and a way to do that is to use negative labels in an effort to negate what the other person has to say. One of those is "homophobe", which is actually an overused nonsensical word. According to some people, those of us who believe what the Bible says about homosexuality being a sin, we get labeled with the nonsense word "homophobes". Although I do not phobe any homos, the word "homophobe" has the baggage of someone who hates homosexuals and advocates violence against them. "He's just one of them homophobes. Gonna stone a gay to death today? Hahahaha!" Emotionally-loaded terminology plus ridicule in a personal attack, and the well may be poisoned. Others on the same low intellectual level are manipulated in joining the hate from the label-er against the label-ee. There is not much actual thought here, just emotional reactions and manipulation.

Another of those words is "fundie". "I went to a fundy site and trolled them because I'm so much smarter than they are, and I prove it by acting like a child! Hahahaha!" Just a minute there, Poindexter. Do you know what a "fundy" really is? It has nothing to do with the Bay of Fundy in Maine. If you're going to insult someone, at least spell it properly. Let me ask again: Do you know what a fundie really is?

Some do know that "fundie" is short for "Fundamentalist". Here again, definitions are important. I did an article on that some time ago here, so I will not reiterate much of that content. Suffice to say that it has become a rather imprecise word that means someone who believes in the fundamentals of his or her faith. The connotation is very negative, and some see a Fundamentalist as a rigid, anti-intellectual, dour, humorless Christian. For a while, Mohammedan terrorists were referred to as "fundamentalists", but now they are called "radicals". (Perhaps people wanted to switch the emotional baggage of "fundamentalist" or "fundie" to Christians. I'm speculating on that, though.) However, that knife cuts both ways. Atheists and evolutionists have their own fundies.

The religion of atheism and religious cult of evolution have their share of fundamentalists in the most negative sense of the word. They attack and malign Christians and creationists, resorting to the previously mentioned emotional manipulation, trolling, litigation, protests, as well as numerous logical fallacies, plagiarism, selective citing, slander, libel and so much more. Then they wonder why people don't like them! It seems to me that if someone was convinced that his worldview was correct, he would smile to himself and go on about his business instead of spending time and money trying to destroy something that he does not believe exists in the first place. Does that strike you as rational behavior?

On a side note, if evolution were true, we would simply be bundles of chemicals doing what they tell us to do. We cannot even account for the reality of our thoughts or memories, because they may not really exist, we just think that we think. Someone would therefore have no legitimate right to complain that I am a heterosexual married man that believes in God, affirms that homosexuality is a sin, refutes atheism, teaches the truth of creation science and so on — I was born that way. Deal with it. There would be no ultimate moral standard, no "right and wrong", and "justice" would be ridiculous. But God does exist, and there is an ultimate standard of morality.

Using words with connotations are also used to have a positive influence. Atheists have many of these, using terms like "rational", "freethinker", "brights", "skeptic", "reason" and so on to appear that they are more intelligent than others. Watch for terms like, "Rationalists believe in science" (which is automatically self-refuting) and, "Fundamentalist ideologues..." (that last bit has two loaded words in a row, you may have noticed). "Theistic evolutionists are more moderate Christians than creationist fundies". They build themselves up and put others down through loaded terminology and pejoratives, and do not use reason to refute positions they disagree with. I expect that thinking people who encounter terms like, "Creationists use disgusting lies in a desperate attempt..." will move along and find something better to do.

Who ya callin' a fundie, fundie?

Definitions are important. When someone uses a word with emotional "punch", it becomes more important to understand what is meant by the word. Also, if someone is using several of these emotive words at a time, that should set off your inner alarm bells so you can consider if that person is really saying anything at all, or just provoking a reaction. It may just be an atheist or evolutionist fundie with nothing to say.

June 13, 2014

It All Adds Up: Many Atheists are Nuts

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Good day to publish this. Not only is it Friday the 13th, but also a full moon.

Atheist, narcissist, atheopath, sociopath, psychopath — sometimes they can describe the same morally bankrupt people. Also, there's a link between atheism and autism. See if this article and the ones that are linked describe any that you know.

At the end of 2010, I had the audacity to even dare to ask if atheism causes brain damage. Apparently, it is one of the ultimate crimes to question anything about the intelligence, morality or sanity of The Mighty Atheist™ because I received a number of attacks, misrepresentation and outright lies. (A guy can't even ask?) Later, atheists were incensed and went into full denial mode when I later pointed out that there is a definite link between atheism and autism.

They do tend to become furious and attack like piranhas at any perceived slight, or if someone criticizes one of their religious icons, such as Clinton Richard Dawkins:

For that matter, priests of atheism and evolutionism like Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson will tell blatant untruths and then their fanboys will gleefully spread them around. 

Observing their behavior (especially online, where they can be bold and beautiful behind their keyboards), and drawing from other things I've learned, I realized that many modern atheists are not just people who happen to reject God. Atheism is not an intellectual position. Rather, it is a way to intellectualize, justify and suppress the truth in unrighteousness so they can indulge in moral corruption

Although atheists are a small minority of the population, it appears that their demographic contains a high percentage of people who are out of their minds. The main problem is spiritual (God "gave them over", Romans 1.18-24). Not only do they exhibit many tendencies of psychopaths (including trolling), but go beyond that into the more dangerous realm of the narcissistic psychopath.

I don't have time to go into detail about what I have seen and experienced, but will point out that this is well in keeping with atheopaths and the new atheo-fascism. (Note the instances of angry atheist evolutionists toward violence, as documented here.)

Moving forward now. An article caught my attention, "Profile of a Narcissistic Sociopath – Charming, Manipulative, Grandiose, Lying, Authoritarian, Secretive, Divisive…". It is not from a Christian perspective, but it has a few points that I would like to go over.

"They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace." I have heard it said (and fully agree) that many professed atheists do not disbelieve in God so much as they are so narcissistic, they are their own gods and there is no room for the real one in their lives. Especially because God cannot be impressed by human "wisdom" and accomplishment, but we must humble ourselves and accept him on his terms, not ours.

"They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else’s fault." Even when you catch one in a lie or an error, the blame is shifted; it's not my fault because someone else made me foul up.

"They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed." I have gained stalkers who have never forgiven me for catching them in lies and logical fallacies, and I have documentation of the same treatment given to others. Instead, we are made to be the liars and the fools in their eyes, and they think we are concerned about what they think. Not hardly. But they do make for good examples so we can instruct thinking people.

"Feels entitled to certain things as 'their right.'" Such as the "right" to be able to make comments, and some get furious when they are not permitted to spout off with their abusive and irrational comments. 

"Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others." Like I said, they make themselves into their own gods. Let me be blunt: In addition to this, they are attention whores. If you do not grant them a platform, the "right" to turn your social media area, Weblog or whatever into their own urinals, they have fits. Some even take an "I'm out to get you" approach, thinking they are doing the world a favor by attacking others through ad hominems and libel. In so doing, they seek to demonize the individual, since they cannot deal with logical arguments and engage in civil discussions for any length of time. Don't get me started on how so many of these militant misotheists are self-appointed experts on a multitude of topics...

"A Sociopath will always be smearing someone and inciting people against each other. Sociopaths do not want people to like or get along with each other and will try to 'divide and conquer.' They will say odd things to people in the social group: 'She doesn’t like you' or 'She doesn’t want me doing anything with you.'" This was particularly interesting to me because I see these people searching the Web and "recruiting" others in their campaigns of hate.

Twitter and YouTube are notorious for having people get others to join in on ridicule. More than once, I've caught an atheopath in logical fallacies, then suddenly I am expected to answer to about six people at one time (and barely able to type out four words in reply there). It is like schoolchildren who were caught smoking in the restroom and want to get others hating the teacher who caught them being rotten in the first place.

"Sociopath has a strange network of Support People ranging from 'consultants,' to skilled-workers, to enabling co-dependents that back him up when he wants to go after his Target. Most of the Support People have their own Psychological problems." Yes, they have their "dens" (as I call them) where they blaspheme God, and whine about Christians and "religion", whether it's the double-standard-laden Facebook, forums or other venues. There were times it read more like a support group than anything else. But it is really interesting to see some furious atheists whining about the big, bad Christians, getting so obstreperous that the other atheists consider them to be of no consequence.

I could go on with this article, add screenshots and links ad nauseum, but you get the idea. Take a look at "Profile of a Narcissistic Sociopath" and see how many you have encountered (endured) yourself. Keep in mind that they crave attention, and keep trying to provoke you to get it. It gets difficult sometimes (especially because so many attempt to manipulate you by appealing to your emotions and pride), but do try your best to leave them behind.

May 30, 2014

More Analysis of the "Hitler was a Christian" Slander

When I first made the post refuting the "Hitler was a Christian" nonsense, there was a great deal of response from atheopaths who wanted to cling to their false claim despite the evidence. They would quote mine from Hitler and ignore information that put it into proper context. (Not surprising, because they believe what Hitler said, but also foolishly quote mine the Bible to make it look bad as well. Glaring inconsistencies at best.) Not only was Hitler a maniacal politician who would say what it took to get people on his side, but he was nuts.

By the way, when pressed, these atheists cannot show where he gave anything resembling accurate Scriptural support for his actions, nor can they show where he was following Biblical commands. It is an entirely spurious argument.

Used by permission of Ken Ammi
Andy Pierson has an interesting article that gives further refutation of the Christian Hitler falsehood. He includes some quotes from Hitler and the Nazis that were downright blasphemous, and also points out that the Christian Hitler claim is logically fallacious.
There is often a misguided belief among rabid anti-Christians (and sometimes even believers) that Hitler was a Christian in adulthood because he was a catholic in his youth. This supposed “fact” that Hitler was Christian is then made into a fallacy of composition to say that Nazi’s and the Nazi movement in general was Christian also. This is then taken to a third level of absurdity to try and prove that Christians are probably madmen and evil due to an extremely tenuous connection to Hitler. This of course is a convenient but false bridge of fallacies (fallacy of association, red herring among others). If we examine the facts, exact quotes and history...we will arrive at a dramatically different conclusion than that of our misguided friends.

This is a warped understanding of history and frankly, frighteningly wrong. Sadly, the belief that Hitler was Christian during his tenure as Früher or that Christianity was somehow complicit in the Holocaust is further exacerbated by what is perceived as a deafening silence from the Vatican during the 1920’s to 1940’s. The Catholic Church is sometimes rabidly pursued as anti-Semitic for this silence also (probably unfairly at times). It is often mentioned that the Vatican was right in the heart of Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy (one of Hitler's allies) so it is implied that they are somehow guilty due to geographical location. Furthermore it is assumed that because the Roman Church did not fight back against the Axis powers they were somehow guilty by omission or by failure to act.
You can read the rest at "The 'Hitler was a Christian' Mythos". By the way, this Weblog is seven years old today.

May 22, 2014

The Danger of Atheists in Power

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are two videos at the end of this article that I urge you to watch.

For years, secularists have been actively protecting evolution from serious scrutiny; people are not educated in thinking logically and examining the evidence. (This can be seen and heard from many modern atheists who claim to use "reason", but are unable to do so.) Instead, they are told what to think and not how to think. Evolution is a cornerstone of atheism and other secularist religions. Biblical creationists not only show the flaws in evolution, but also stand on the authority of God's Word instead of making idols out of scientists. In fact, many secularists have elevated science itself to a kind of deity status. 

I made this in May 2010, and I'm pleased to see that it has been around. Sometimes, with variations.
The new atheo-fascists are capitalizing on these things. Since people "think" with their emotions rather than utilizing the minds that God gave them, they fall prey to manipulative tactics. Many of these are interrelated:
  • Ridicule. Discrimination and persecution often begin here. It can be the "appeal to ridicule" fallacy ("Do you realize what people will think if they found out that you believe in God?"), or outright mockery. Notice how this is extensive on social media, and Facebook is known for shutting down Christians and political Conservatives.
  • Confusion. Attacking people with a barrage of statements, leading questions and outright nonsense, then affirming that atheism uses "reason".
  • Marginalization. Using misrepresentation and straw men (which can be seen in the appeal to ridicule fallacy mentioned above), selective citing or simply brushing someone off as unimportant because of their worldview (often using the "genetic fallacy" and "poisoning the well"). This is different from brushing something or someone off because you have concluded that they are wasting your time, however.
  • Trolling. Atheopaths will go on a jihad to attack Christians and creationists all over the Web instead of allowing freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Silence through intimidation.
  • Intimidation, bullying and stalking. The aforementioned trolls use ridicule and confusion to attempt to intimidate people (but they become furious when people stand up to them and show their fallacies), and some resort to stalking.
  • Nit-picking. Militant atheists and fundamentalist evolutionists will pick on an article's introduction and ignore the substance. Similarly, they will find something that is not documented and complain about that (again, ignoring the main part of an article).
  • Labeling. People will use loaded terminology (including nonsensical and dishonest words like "homophobe" and "anti-science"). People like Richard Dawkins and his followers will call "religion" a "virus", and people who teach the Bible to their children are "child abusers". "Religion is dangerous" is a fallacious generalization. Since so many people lack critical thinking skills, they simply accept the emotive terminology they receive rather than risk being politically incorrect by challenging it.
  • Concentration and repetition. This is a propaganda technique where if something is repeated enough, people will eventually believe it (whether it is true or not).
  • Legislation and activism. Militant atheists are attempting to remove the rights of Christians, as is seen in the news on a frequent basis. Teaching creation science is becoming illegal in Britain.
  • Opposition. Atheo-fascists attack Bible-believing Christians on issues of abortion, homosexual "marriage" and others. Ironically, they act like it is some kind of moral imperative to oppose us on those issues as well as evolution, yet they do not have a consistent moral standard! Note that there are very few who hold to politically conservative viewpoints.
  • Global warming (or "climate change). They are in agreement with the environmental extremists regarding anthropomorphic global warming. Those of us who disagree with this, as well as with evolutionism, are "science deniers".

  • Violence. We know what happens when atheists get political power. On a less obvious level, vandalism of Christian places is increasing, and yes, violence by atheists is also increasing. Note that most atheists deny this, saying that atheism had nothing to do with killing. It is another expression of hatred for God and his followers.

Militant atheopaths are ridiculing, marginalizing at finding various ways to attack Christians. We need to be aware of the threat and arm ourselves with our own activism, prayer, knowledge of Scripture, true science and more. We need to use our rights to speak out and resist them instead of rolling over and letting it happen. If we don't use our rights, we may very well lose them.

Please watch the videos:

May 16, 2014

Free Speech, Censorship, the Internet, You and the Bad Guy

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 
Edited January 28, 2017
Sometimes I am the bad guy when it comes to matters of "free speech" and "censorship". People often talk about them, but they often use those terms in the heat of anger or to emotionally manipulate others. In reality, there is no absolutely free speech, and censorship can be helpful — and censorship is more common than you may think.

Free Speech
Someone may say that they have a "right" to free speech, but where did they get that right? Here in the United States, we have documents from our founders that guarantee it. Some countries have almost no free speech. Even here where it is treasured, there are limitations. Municipalities have statutes in place making certain speech unlawful; the community has the right to set its standards, after all (as long as it does not engage in illegal "hard" censorship). We have the right to criticize the government. However, we do not have the right to cause harm to others through defamation, inciting violence, and so on. You can say, "That guy's stupid", and your remark will probably be put aside as an insulting outburst. Attacking character, calling someone a liar, actively trying to harm that person — if you cannot back up what you say or write about someone, you are abusing free speech and may be subject to legal action. Similarly, the old adage of, "You cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" applies, as such an action can cause panic, injury and death. Many more examples exist, but you get the point: There are exceptions to free speech, even in countries that guarantee it.

Many people applaud the Internet because people can have their say with fewer restrictions. However, if you join a forum, sign up for Web space, start a Weblog, join some other online service, there are restrictions in place. These are often based on the laws of the countries where the host is based, but there are also agreements with certain basic standards (even Facebook will occasionally enforce some of those, but they are notorious for double standards). Read the Terms of Service for many of the online products and you'll see that you cannot defame people, post child porn, infringe on copyright, use "hate speech" (against ethnicity, gender, religion and so on) and many other restrictions. If someone wants to violate these things, they can lose the privilege of using that service and risk possible prosecution. So, even on the Web, there is no absolutely free speech.

Unpopular Opinion Puffin censorship necessary

When discussing censorship, the first thought that many people have is about governments. During wartime, mail to and from hostile countries went through a censor's office before being delivered to the recipient. There is censorship to protect military secrets from other countries. Certain other speech (like sedition) is censored, as are many forms of pornography.

People will self-censor every day. A guy may want to say, "Hey girl, your dress looks like a potato sack", but will say something else or even keep his remarks to himself. A co-worker says something bad about the boss, and the other co-worker refrains from agreeing or adding additional statements. Spouses find better ways to say something or not say it at all.

Web Services
On the Web, your host can remove your content or even suspend your account for violation of the rules. Leaving comments, making posts, writing articles that are against the rules (or against laws) can result in removal from a service.

It is ironic that Facebook and others will censor many Christians, Conservatives and creationists, but allow obscene hate speech by by atheists, leftists and evolutionists. That's right, Skippy, we get censored. Quite a bit, in fact. Many of us expect to wake up some morning and find that our material has been removed by leftists and misotheists.

Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman
"Censored" stamp art originally from clker.com

Where are the Rights?
On the Web, some people demand the "right" to "free speech". In actuality, they want to be able to say what they want, wherever they want, without restrictions. If someone bans a user or removes a comment, he or she is often accused of "censorship". Although it is an emotionally-laden buzzword that is often thrown out almost reflexively, there are times that there is truth to the accusation. When Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. David Menton made a response video to Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy, Dr. Purdom's Facebook Page was loaded with vile, hateful comments. Many people were angry because those comments were deleted and people were banned. She was called a "coward" for not allowing atheopaths to turn her Facebook Page into their a latrine. I recommend that you read "Am I a Coward?" for her insightful response to this. Was it censorship? Seems to be. Was it the right thing to do? You betcha! Did they lose their rights? Not hardly.

Most of this stuff happens from militant atheists who have no respect (indeed, they have contempt) for the rights, sensibilities, views and expression of others. I believe that they want to silence the opposition (those of us who present the gospel, and especially those who spread the truth that evolution is false and that God is the Creator to whom we are accountable). One way to silence us is to shout us down or intimidate us. Want to comment? I moderate those. Want to send me an e-mail? If you're obnoxious, you'll be blocked. You do not have the right to inflict your viewpoints on people who do not want them. I know of some organizations that refuse to deal with some people because of their obstreperous comments.

What Does it Mean to You?
Manipulators will insist that they have the "right" to leave comments of any kind, and if you do not allow them, you are a "coward", you are suppressing their "free speech" and engaging in "censorship". Many sites, Pages, Weblogs and so on do not allow comments at all, or restrict them — note the blatant hypocrisy of atheopath tinhorns that complain about sites that moderate or disallow comments, but not a peep about many sites, such as Popular Science, that have removed commenting altogether. Why should we subject ourselves to bigotry, hate speech, libel, tantrums and simply bad behavior? They are not being denied free speech because they can join bigoted forums, write their own Weblogs, and they can find other venues to express themselves. These complainers have no justification, and they still have their rights — but they were never given the right to post material on our sites and so forth, no matter what they assert. The painful truth for them is that you do not have to give narcissistic bullies a platform.

This means that you and I are not guaranteed free speech, nor will we escape censorship, even online. We do not have any right to say whatever we want, wherever and whenever. To some people, this makes me the bad guy. So say goodnight to the bad guy!

Subscribe in a reader