March 24, 2015

Cowboy-Style Coffee, Then and Now

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Nowadays, I can't go without coffee. If Doc tells me to give it up, I don't know what I'm going to do. Maybe go back to drinking tea. I used to drink tea, and was a reluctant convert to coffee because of convenience and socializing at various jobs. Never did give up coffee all the way, though.

Back in the days when cowboy drovers were moving cattle from Texas to Kansas (just after the Civil War until the mid-1880s, mainly), the chuck wagon cook needed coffee to help keep the crew moving and happy — or closer to it, in that dangerous, dirty work. The Arbuckle brothers came up with a new way of processing and sealing the coffee, and it was an instant hit in the West. Since there weren't no stove handy most of the time, cowboys had their methods to make it, and it's still popular for people who are camping and so on. Good thing cowboys like to eat eggs... Here's a recipe from Camping With Gus, and more recipe information from American Cowboy. Don't forget that pinch of salt.


I never did get around to having it that way.

A co-worker clued me in on a bargain at a place called "Ollie's Bargain Outlet", and I saw a brand I never heard of: Rio Grande Roasters, with the cowboy logo. I had a laugh at that. The write-up on the packaging was entertaining, too:
Rio Grande Roasters™ started with an attitude. A “roll up your sleeves, get the job done” passion and determination for creating coffee that honors the rugged independence of the American West. Sturdy brews that help you tackle whatever lies ahead, and consistent quality that never lets you down. Our 100% Arabica beans are freshly roasted in small batches with a bold Southwestern flair. From sunrise to sundown, a cup of Rio Grande Roasters™ coffee makes a great partner.
I got some small packages to try out, and I don't even have one of those newfangled coffee-making machines. They cost around $80 USD, so it may be a long spell before I get one, too. But they have the machines in the break room at the workplace, so I picked up a couple of small packages of the Rio Grande Roasters. 

The coffee was pretty good, so I took a chance on this monster:


Mesa Sunrise coffee from Rio Grande Roasters (made by the Trilliant company). Got myself an 80-pack on sale.

Yep, that's an 80-cup package. Since I spend over 40 hours a week at the workplace, and occasional overtime (some owlhoots lied and said that I get my greenbacks from my creation science ministry), I figued, "Why not?" They cost me 31 cents a serving, and I have ten months before the "use by" date on the package. Yes, my gamble paid off, I like the taste of the "Mesa Sunrise" coffe.

Betcha the Cartwrights woulda love to see the modern conveniences.

The makers of the coffee will probably never know about this article and indirect endorsement, but I had fun writing it and doing something completely different.

March 22, 2015

Taqiyya, Mohammedans, and Facebook "Standards"

Taqiyya gives Muslims license to deceive unbelievers.

Not everyone knows this, but Mohammedans are permitted to lie to unbelievers to gain our trust and then defeat us. It's called "Taqiyya". I reckon that this falls under the heading of "the end justifies the means". One instance of this on Facebook was done by a Page called "Western Terrorism Watch". The name implies that they are one of several Pages that report Islamic terrorism. Instead, they are loaded with hatred for the Israel, the United States, Canada and the Western world in general.

They came to my attention when they reacted to the article, "Evolutionary Thinking and ISIS Atrocities" when it was posted on The Question Evolution Project:
A pro-terrorist Page on Facebook complained when an article against terrorism was posted.
Posted under "Fair Use" terms for educational purposes. Besides, it was in my e-mail.

Ironic to be called hypocritical by hypocrites. Their Page has only nine "Likes" at this writing, but their hate-speech posts and remarks are deplorable, and loaded with straw man arguments, false generalizations, and more. More of "the end justifies the means", ISIS is a murderous terrorist group that is capable of burning people alive, such as this Jordanian pilot. This bunch of pit vipers are not content to kill infidels, but will also kill other Mohammedans, such as these in a Yemen mosque.

If post something that is offensive to the Gaystapo, militant atheists, leftists, other groups, your post will get pulled down and you'll get slapped around by Fazebook. But if you report hate speech against Christians, Conservatives, traditional family advocates, creationists, and so forth, you're shooting craps and the dice are loaded against you:
Atheist Zuckerberg and his leftist crew do nothing against many forms of hate speech, but approve of anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, anti-creationist, anti-Semitic hate speech.
Image courtesy of Why?Outreach

I tried to report the terrorism lovers to Facebook. You can guess what happened:
Facebook "standards" in action. That is, hate speech against Christians, Americans, Canadians, the Western world, Israel and others is acceptable.

When you have a social media site that is run by leftists and atheist Zuckerberg, don't be surprised when you get waved aside. And Fazebook shouldn't be surprised when something else comes along that has consistent standards and FB becomes as relevant tomorrow as MySpace is today. If I didn't have to be on there to reach people, I wouldn't be there at all.

March 11, 2015

Kent Hovind Case — Wrong on Many Levels

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This kind of stuff really puts a burr under my saddle. Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind was jailed on tax-related crimes. As I write this, the jury is deliberating on additional charges against him — crimes allegedly committed while in prison, and they want to put him away for a very long time. Naturally, atheopaths dance the Darwin Disco and try to use this to poke creationists in the eye. But you can't get the truth from those tinhorns. And getting the actual story requires some digging.

My own awareness of Kent Hovind is minimal. I heard some audio and saw some videos a few years ago, and thought that he was a very engaging, dynamic speaker. He stood up for the truth against arch-compromiser Hugh Ross, but has used "do not use" arguments for creation. (Although I'm biased in Hovind's favor and think he has been, and is, railroaded, I have to be honest about those shortcomings in his presentations.) Even so, he had atheists in a tizzy during debates — perhaps that is one of the main reasons they hate him so much. These days, I am familiar with and supportive of Eric Hovind's Creation Today ministry.



Was Hovind running a scam and dodging taxes, maybe "milking the system"? I don't see how any informed, intellectually honest person can reach that conclusion. Oh, sure, the Internal Revenue Service has their side of the story, but so do Kent Hovind, co-defendant Paul Hansen and their supporters. There are extremes in the story, some are typical sidewinder nonsense from anti-creationists, the other extreme sometimes presents a great deal of emotion. The antagonists won't bother to consider that he may be a prisoner of conscience who had a disagreement with the business laws and taxes. (Civil disobedience helped make Henry David Thoreau a hero to some.) Nor will they consider that violent criminals have served less time in prison than Kent Hovind already has!

Note the hypocrisy of atheist organizations who claim that they want fairness. Groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and others didn't offer a meadow muffin about Obamacare's bullying of the Catholic church, nor do they show any concern about Kent Hovind. If they were honest, they'd be involved, since government abuses of power (such as this one) can become their problem as well — but will there be anyone left to help them out? Not hardly.

One version of the Niemöller poem comes to mind:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
For people who want to investigate and learn more truth than they'll get from militant atheists and the government's biased side of the story, I have some materials to offer.
I hope that people will use the information instead of the anti-creationist, anti-Hovind nonsense that is prevalent. This is bigger than a disagreement between a creationist and the government, it can have repercussions that affect many people. And Christians, you'd better be praying!
      

February 12, 2015

Evolution, the Illuminati, and Question Evolution Day


by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For Question Evolution Day, I decided to write some thoughts about the Illuminati and conspiracies. According to some people, the Illuminati is a secret organization that seeks world domination, and has a strong influence in the affairs of governments. I understand that they're also spying on individuals, and some accounts tell us that they want to take over the world for Satan. 

Yes, the Illuminati started out as a secret organization, and people link them to another secret organization, the Freemasons. They have also been allied with the Anunnaki, who are (according to some accounts) our reptilian masters from outer space who also control the world. The details are sketchy about their power and alliances, and vary greatly, some tales are extremely far-fetched.

How secret are they, then? People seem to "know" a great deal about them. They are writing Weblogs and posting in social media all over the place. When people make the devil hand signal where the index and pinkie fingers are extended, and the middle two are held down by the thumb, sometimes observes exclaim, "Aha! An Illuminati person is signaling other members!" That hand sign is popular in occult heavy metal acts (such as the late Ronnie James Dio), and is also used by supporters of the Texas Longhorns football team. I remember people accusing George W. Bush of flashing the sooper-sekrit signal. Yeah, big secret. In a press conference, a sign that many people know the secret for, in front of the press and millions of viewers — and he's known for doing it to support the Longhorns.

I reckon that I'm put off by the wild stories and conspiracy theories; there isn't a great deal of unity in them. If the Illuminati or a consortium of secret, powerful groups does exist, there's not hardly a lot I can do about it. I'm sure some people will want to convince me now.

Do you want a conspiracy theory? I'll give you one.

Today is the fourth annual Question Evolution Day. It is an event to unify people who want to speak out against evolution and affirm creation, and for people to stand for religious, intellectual, academic, speech and other basic rights. We hope that not only will biblical creationists uphold the authority of Scripture, but that people will start to critically examine evolution and see that there is precious little science in it. Conjectures, "just so stories", unfounded assertions, fraud and outright lies are used to uphold evolutionism.

Why?



It goes back to the Garden of Eden, and Satan's first lie where "you shall be like God" (Genesis 3:4-5). People use evolution to "scientifically" justify their rebellion against God, even though they know he exists (Romans 1:18-22). He's the Creator, and he makes the rules. People want to be their own gods, making their own rules and worshiping false gods, especially themselves and invoking Scientism. Evolution is a major stumbling block for people to come to salvation through Jesus Christ.

Satan is the controlling force of billions of lost souls (2 Cor. 4:4). He loves evolution because it promotes his lie to Eve that people have believed for millennia afterward. So, Satan protects evolution with his Darwin Drones, stalkers, trolls, and the like. Many people are deceived by evolutionism, and fight to keep it from rational scrutiny. If it was an intellectual problem, people would be biblical creationists! But no, it is a spiritual problem.

Although there is no secret organization of evolutionists, Satan is the mastermind controlling evolution. (You'd think the Illuminati, Masons, Anunnaki, and others would be violently shutting down creation science, since it proclaims the true God of the Bible.) The conspiracy is in the unseen realm, not from flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12).

You want a conspiracy theory? I can do one for your dancing and dining pleasure. 

Satan is the mastermind. He has servants who willingly bow to him for power, money, prestige, and other promises. So, his servants organized into secret societies to fight against the truth of the gospel message, which begins in Genesis. Wait I hear someone outside better post this quic

February 2, 2015

Creation, Conservatives, and Fighting for Free Speech

If the Grinch was a leftist, he might say, "Free speech is speech I can't stand in the least!" Let's face it, political correctness is primarily an effort to suppress free speech. Who are the biggest proponents of political correctness? Liberals, of course! They resort to labeling and name-calling, especially if someone holds to traditional Christian and Conservative values. If you point out that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, you're a homophobe (a meaningless term used to provoke emotion; I don't phobe homos, or heteros, for that matter). If you point out the minority-status national origin of a criminal, you're a racist. Say that there are some things women just can't do, you're a sexist. Ban an obstreperous atheopath from trampling a Christian or creationist site, you're a censor (news flash, Skippy, you were banned for being an obnoxious buffoon, not for being a threat to our beliefs, and certainly not for using logic).

Liberals rely on emotion and fear. When they have power, they use it with gusto. Post some of the aforementioned ideas on Facebook, you can get in trouble. One guy posted something in an atheist-dominated "debate" group promoting Question Evolution Day, and was promptly treated like garbage and QED was thoroughly misrepresented (atheists almost always misrepresent creationists). Then he mysteriously lost his account. However, (warning, I'm not kidding here) this obscene graphic was not removed, it does not violate the so-called standards of Facebook. And that's very, very typical of Fazebook.

There are still pockets of teh interweb where free speech still exists for Christians, creationists, and Conservatives. It is still a great equalizer, giving us regular folks a chance to express ourselves. But even that depends on various factors. We'll speak out while we still can.

Doug McBurney is a Conservative Christian who has a podcast called "The Weekly Worldview". Politically correct? Not hardly! Doug will tell you what he thinks about the news, and tell you the truth about the left. He is also a creationist who supports Question Evolution Day. He'll make you think, enrage atheists and liberals, make you laugh, he plays rock and roll to make ironic points... Check out his current podcast at "Snapshots from the Bizarro World".



January 11, 2015

The "Prove It" Fallacy

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is not only very helpful to learn about informal logical fallacies, but can be fun. At least, they are for me.
Prove it!
Not only does this help you in discussions so you can see if some owlhoot is building an argument with faulty reasoning, but helps you check your own arguments so you can present present them as accurately as possible.
Back up your assertions!
The more I learn about fallacies, the more I see that not only can many of them get combined and overlap (a comment can a contain complex question, an ad hominem and a genetic fallacy all at the same time, for example).
Are you afraid to back up your claims, or just too stupid to cite something from a real source and not from creatard sites?
More than that, I keep seeing additional "fallacies" that appear to be simply made up. Someone accused me of committing a fallacy because I pointed out his own fallacies, therefore, I was negated and he was free to build his faulty arguments! Now, I can see that if someone makes false accusations about a fallacy, that is a valid complaint. But the example I gave, and others, I am suspicious that they're valid. Or at least, I reckon they're not established or important enough to list with more important fallacies.
Since you're not proving anything, I guess you're not able to understand logic.
So, I'm going to make up a fallacy of my own: The "Prove It Fallacy". Although it can happen in the real world, it occurs much more frequently on the Web.



There have been times when I have made comments that people enthusiastically attacked and demanded proof. I could say, "I remember reading that John Wayne left the comfort of his film crew camp and brought food to the Mexican extras at their camp, and ate with them". Someone might reply, "Citation, or it never happened". Yes, there are people who demand proof for what seems like almost everything you say.

I really think that the Atheist Handbook™ forbids allowing Christians (especially creationists) to be right, so if they can't get every challenge answered, they use the argument from silence and consider their opponent to be refuted. (This is similar to "typo pouncing", where a simple mispeling is used to negate an entire discussion, or even the personhood of the commenter.) Such tactics make it very difficult to have a decent exchange on the interweb.

The more I cognate on this, I'm seeing that it may be just a subfallacy of an important, established fallacy: the red herring. It's just a means of distracting from the topic at hand, and avoiding whether or not someone has a decent argument or response.

When you think about it, old son, you'll see that many fallacies have a measure of red herring in them: Ridicule, poisoning the well, appeal to motive, libeling someone by calling him or her a liar without evidence (making the accuser the liar), straw man and more (you can see a corral-load of fallacies in my "Logic Lessons" series). Now, sometimes distractions and rabbit trails can be fun, but also frustrating for people who want a discussion to stay on track.

Of course, there are times when someone makes a claim that is relevant to the discussion and needs support (especially when someone makes a claim as an attempted rebuttal to someone's comment, such as, "You creationists are all liars!" — back that up, Skippy). That's not my point here. I'm talking about those sidewinders who challenge so many statements that they ruin the discussion. (On a side note, there have been times where I was asked to support my claims, so I gave them a link to one of my articles. They used the genetic fallacy and rejected it out of hand because it was my work, and didn't bother to see that I documented what I had to say seven ways from sundown.) Ofttimes, they won't even bother with the support you wasted time in tracking down and posting because they're just interested in being obstreperous.

The issuing of constant challenges indicates to me that someone isn't interested in having a rational discussion. I believe that anti-creationists and atheopaths are unwilling (and maybe even afraid) to consider reasoned arguments from Christians (especially biblical creationists). Are these people challenging you for the sake of challenging? That's up to you to decide, and to choose whether or not you're simply wasting your time.

December 14, 2014

Conflation and the War Between Science and Religion


by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Back when I was giving talks on creation science, I used what has become a very popular quote by an atheist:
‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. 
— G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.
The way I study on it, this quote would have been mostly forgotten if biblical creationists hadn't lassoed it and kept repeating it.

"Why do you people keep repeating it, Cowboy Bob?"

Thanks for asking. We repeat it because it's right. Vituperative and biased, but right. This was back in 1979. Evolutionists and atheists have been doing a bait 'n' switch for a long time by conflating (or "equivocating", almost the same thing) "science" with "evolution". Particles-to-people evolution is a belief system about the distant past where people attempt to use scientific methods, principles, discoveries and so on to justify an evolutionary worldview. The belief in evolution is the starting point for interpreting data.

Likewise, creation science is a belief system about the distant past where people attempt to use scientific methods, principles, discoveries and so on to justify a creationist worldview. Our belief in the biblical account of creation is our starting point for interpreting data. Atheists often ridicule Christians because our foundation is different from theirs — and theirs is "right" because they said so. But we all have the same data, the same facts — there is no stacking up their facts against our facts. In fact, a fact is a fact. It's the interpretation of facts that cause the disagreements.

Evolutionists and atheists hate this truth with a passion: Creation and evolution are equally religious and equally scientific. You see, everyone has an ultimate starting point — a worldview and presuppositions. We interpret information through them. Some make science into a kind of religion (Scientism), and there is no reality that cannot be determined scientifically, This worldview is self-refuting. God's Word is the basis of the Christian's worldview (or it should be!), and the Bible is self-affirming.

Let's ride down this trail a bit more.

Atheists have insisted for a long time that there is a war between "science" and "religion". That is the opposite of the truth. Creationists put this idea six feet under long ago by pointing out that there are many creationist scientists, and there is no conflict between their faith and real science.


But atheists are trying to raise zombies. What this "war" rhetoric really means for them is that there is a war between evolution and biblical creation.Evolution and creation are historical (sometimes called origins) science, and then there is operational science, which applies to real life.

In the quote by Bozarth, he conflated "science" with "evolution" (atheists often get sneaky and also conflate "reason" with "atheism"; if you're not an atheist, you don't use reason and logic — "logic vs. creationism", for instance). Other heroes of unbelief also do this, and it is false. You do not need to believe in evolution to be a good scientist. F'rinstance, there are people working together literally doing rocket science, some are creationists, some are evolutionists, and their views of origins have no bearing on their ability to do science work. This happens in other fields as well.

However, many anti-creationists have been denying that there is a difference between historical and operational sciences:

Spot the zombie? The "war between science and religion" concept was buried by biblical creationists, but atheists dug it up and reanimated it by conflating "evolution" with "science". Again, there is a war between the truth (biblical creation science) and the lie (evolution and billions of years), but no war between science and religion/faith. Watch for this deception, it's quite common.

Evolution is a cornerstone for the religion of atheism. Clinton R. Dawkins said, "Darwin made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". Since evolution is scientifically and logically a pile of meadow muffins, it's no surprise that atheists play so many disingenuous word games and use logical fallacies to "protect science" (meaning, guard evolution from scrutiny).

It's sad that many Christians do not recognize the importance of our foundations in Genesis. Some atheists understand it far better than many Christians! In fact, C. Richard Dawkins states it clearly:
I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen.

— Richard Dawkins interviewed by Richard Conder on Revelation TV, Feb 2011

One of the biggest barriers for people to come to faith in Christ is evolution. When you have Christians that are reluctant to stand for the truth, are unable to answer questions about it, and also fall for the devious tricks from atheists (including conflation), there are problems. Atheists and evolutionists utterly despise those of us who take an uncompromising stance on our biblical foundations. Creation science ministries not only show evidence for creation and refute evolution, but also seek to equip Christians to present the gospel — these ministries are a resource. Are we getting ridiculed, lied about, mocked, libeled and so on? Yup. Shall we compromise? Not hardly.




Question Evolution Day, Creation Science, The Question Evolution Project, Piltdown Superman

December 7, 2014

Village Atheist Tricks

A simple, fair, obvious question: If atheists and anti-creation evolutionists are confident in their reasoning abilities, why do they resort to unconscionable and illegal methods to silence Christians and creationists? I reckon that the days are long gone where people could discuss matters rationally. Now, we have to deal with attacks. This fits in with the rising tide of wickedness in the world, but atheopaths are behind a lot of it. Especially on the interwebs.

Those of us with knowledge and experience can dismantle their "reasoning" and expose their logical fallacies, especially since most are based on assertions, intimidation, ridicule and outright personal attacks. Many atheists are materialists who are bowing to their religion of Scientism. Since many can't saddle up the horse of reason and learn to ride, they prefer to go in with six-guns blazing in different ways — primarily based on provoking emotional reactions.

Some resort to criminal acts like impersonation (see "Finding Anti-Creation Facebook Fakers", an article about my own experience with The Question Evolution Project, "Faker Alert for Facebook", and something from the Intelligent Design community, "Fun from Facebook: Fake ID pages", for three examples). Although they despise Intelligent Design and "theists" in general, their main venom is directed toward biblical creationists. This parody video lays out some points to consider:


I've been the recipient of several libelous pieces on atheist sites. Again, they attack the person instead of honestly addressing the subjects at hand. "Good without God"? Not hardly! These tinhorns are not interested in science or reason. Instead, these "freethinkers" are doing the bidding of their father down below, and want to steal, kill and destroy (John 8:44, John 10:10), and are exceptionally dishonest (1 Tim. 4:1-2). The Bible tells us that this stuff will happen (2 Tim. 3:12, Matt. 5:12).
We often get asked for our response to some atheist critique of an article we have published. For example, I have been asked to respond to an atheist ‘wiki’ website that has an article that claims to rebut my article Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe. Correspondents have asked me to rebut the (supposed) rebuttal. 
I have replied as follows. 
I am very much aware of the wiki article; the fans of the website made it their business to make sure I knew about it (I got ~100 emails from them when it went up). It appeared that not many of them actually read my article at all carefully, or any of the linked supporting articles. The agenda of such fanatical atheists (‘new atheists’) is to ‘search and destroy’ (faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour), not to ‘seek and find’.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Responding to atheistic opposition — Underhanded tactics include attempted censorship".

December 6, 2014

That "Copies of Pagan Myths" Nonsense

One of the most annoying and tiresome attacks on Christianity is when atheists will say, "You st00pid dumb Xtians are just copying ancient pagan religions!", and then they throw some outright falsehoods that they gleaned off the interwebs. Fact check, please! But no, that requires intellectual honesty.

Wikimedia Commons / Ad Meskens


What if a pagan god showed up at your Christmas service and said that you're really celebrating his birth, and that Jesus is just a copy of pagan myths? Here are two videos. The first is a cartoon that dispenses with the myths. The second is from Ian Juby's "Genesis Week", where he deals with the Horus manure.



 
 
Start at the 18 minutes 9 seconds mark to get right to the Horus stuff:

November 9, 2014

Atheism, Secularism and Lack of Logic



by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the main problems that atheists have is prejudicial conjecture. That is, they get all het up, thinking they know about something and spouting off their uninformed opinions while also trying to influence the views of others. When it comes to the Bible, many atheists not only resort to prejudicial conjecture, but many other logical fallacies including the straw man. Sorry, Cupcake, but we don't have to defend something we don't hold to or didn't say. This includes quote-mined material from the Bible.


Numerous fallacies can be rounded up in regards to creation science. They will misrepresent creationists, call us liars (their "proof" is essentially based on "because I said so repeatedly", but actually makes them the liars because of no real evidence), appeal to motive, poisoning the well, unfounded accusations, loaded terminology and a whole lot more. With just a little learning about informal logical fallacies, it's easy to spot atheopaths using numerous errors in what passes for reasoning on their world.


This is "Fair Use" for educational purposes. Also, I see that someone didn't cotton to Haywire's rants.
Another trick is redefining words to suit their purposes. The established definition of atheism is someone who believes there is no God or gods. Since that fails logic and philosophy tests, they have conveniently redefined it into someone who "lacks belief", but they are still making a belief statement. (Fine, I lack belief in a universe without God.) Since atheism is such a negative religion, it has been also redefined as secularism or even secular humanism, but both terms still come down to meaning "atheism". "Secularism" is not "neutral"; secularists keep working on removal of all vestiges of Christianity in public life. That is an establishment of an atheist religion, not "neutrality"!

One of the most popular efforts of quote mining by atheists in America is the so-called "Constitutional separation of church and state". Many people believe the lie that this is in the US Constitution. I remember some of a conversation about 30 years ago, I said to a guy, "The Constitution says that the church shall be separate from the state, and the school from the church". The other guy said, "Yes!" Then I informed him that I was almost-quoting from the USSR Constitution (it's in the 1936 and 1977 USSR Constitutions). He didn't like that trick, but it showed how he had accepted a belief without truth. The fact is, despite the manipulations and trickery of secularists, there is no such thing as the separation of church and state in the US Constitution! But atheist-sympathizing judicial activist judges in this country act like it's there.

Let's get back on the original trail again.

Atheists and other anti-creationists give uninformed opinions when they attack Christians and biblical creationists. Some think they've found problems with the Bible, therefore there is no God, but their objections have been answered long, long ago and answers are posted online. Very few have the intellectual integrity to honestly investigate from the sources about what we believe and teach. They get their information from other atheopaths and anti-creationists who misrepresent us, or just base their opinions on watching or reading secular humanist-based science fiction. How about going to the source instead of fallaciously paying attention to poorly-thought second-hand opinions? There really is a Creator, and he makes the rules. We are all going to be answerable to him one day. For some of us, it will be a joy. For others, it will be Hell (Phil. 2.9-11, Rev. 20.15). By denying God, you're making your choice with your pretended "secular" neutrality.

Wild Bill Finlay is an American Conservative commentator and a Christian. He has some good observations in this short video.

Subscribe in a reader