July 24, 2017

Clinton Richard Dawkins "Deplatformed" in Berkeley

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the high priests of atheism is C. Richard Dawkins. (His tinhorn fans consider themselves "New Atheists", but the only thing "new" about them is their extreme hatred and intolerance, dishonesty, lack of thinking skills, redefining "reason" and "rational" to mean "naturalist" and "atheist", and a passel of other flaws that make them detestable to the rest of the American population. I reckon professing atheists of yore would be embarrassed by this lot.) Atheopaths rally behind Dawkins since he gives a façade of intellectualism, although atheism cannot withstand true logic. To put it another way, he's considered brilliant by people who already hate God and are digging up excuses to justify their rebellion against their Creator. Dawkins is angry, hypocritical, and mean-spirited in general, but is surprised that people do not like him. In the formerly great Britain, other scientists also have a dim view of him. That should tell him something.

Dawkins disinvited Berkeley free speech
Background image of shattering atheist symbol courtesy of Why?Outreach
Atheists and leftists are champions of free speech — but only as long as it's their kind of speech, as is readily apparent. Free speech was a big deal at University of California at Berkeley in the 1960s, but they have protested appearances by people who say things they dislike — lately, they have done this with violence. The reason? They reject the content as well as the people that oppose leftist views. Colleges used to be places that taught people how to think, which includes dealing with opposing views. Now they have safe zones so they can be protected from challenges and concepts they find threatening, poor snowflake darlings.

Ride with me on a side trail for a spell. Way back when, I visited a Ku Klux Klan rally in a small town near Kalamazoo, Michigan. The white supremacists were well-mannered, and the protesters were borderline violent. I wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, defending their right to free speech, even though I despise what they promote. Someone responded to my letter and justified the juvenile actions of the protesters, saying, "Do you know what they teach?" Yes, yes I do. He conveniently missed the point of what I was saying: we can't shut them down because we don't like them, and we could be next.

Now, let's get back to the Dr. Dawkins subject. He was invited to speak in Berkeley, but not by the college itself. He was going to be making chin music on atheism and his "excellent new book on science". (The title, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Realist, implies philosophy and metaphysics more than actual science, but I digress.) He was "deplatformed" (did that word even exist five years ago?) from speaking because he said harsh things about Islam. Interesting how "progressives" adore homosexuality as well as Islam, but that religion not only rejects homosexuality, with some adherents actively killing them. Leftists have a dilemma, don't they? The leftists didn't check to see if Dawkins spoke the truth, did they?

Listen, I don't cotton to Dawkins. I think he is an irrational, hateful sidewinder that lies about God and Christians under the nebulous word "religion". He needs to humble himself and repent before the God he claims does not exist, as should his followers. I also believe he should have been allowed to speak. The winds of political correctness can shift quickly. While atheists are notorious for suppressing the free speech of creationists and other Christians, that does not justify my taking a "serves you right" approach. And there may still be a few intelligent atheists who would join with others in protecting such rights against governmental interference and obstruction by confused people who follow trends. I'm not saying that everyone should give everyone a platform in every circumstance when people want to present their views. In a public setting where free speech was promoted in the past, though, denying Dawkins the opportunity to speechify is hypocritical.

Here are some articles that I thought you might like. Note: In no wise do I approve of the full contents of each article.

July 9, 2017

Incoherent "Reasoning" from Silverman in Debate

James White shows that atheist David Silverman is incoherent

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This 2010 debate between atheist David Silverman and Christian Dr. James White illustrates how things that are considered logical from an atheistic perspective are, in reality, incoherent. Silverman used many fallacies:

  • Argument from outrage (essentially, the New Testament is evil because he doesn't like what it says)
  • Straw man arguments (when he was called on this, he promptly redefined the meaning of a straw man for his own convenience)
  • Appeal to motive plus some ad hominem remarks against Dr. White
  • Equivocation
  • For a debate on the New Testament, he went back to the Old Testament several times. Especially Genesis, which helps illustrate why biblical creationists affirm its truth
  • Several others that I'll leave to the listener to observe
James White clearly showed that David Silverman's arguments for the nature of good and evil are irrational, standing on the biblical worldview when he calls something evil, but Silverman also relies on subjective, personal preference as a basis for morality.

Some of the debate involved matters of theology. I do not get into deeper theological matters with misotheists, as they are not only opposed to such things, but cannot understand them (1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Matt. 12:30). Dr. White discussed some theology from his Reformed perspective. Agree or disagree, Silverman was still unable to refute anything or support his own claims. However, White also managed to make the gospel message clear. Some of his detractors have said he does not do this, especially with Mohammedans, but that is easily debunked when honestly considering the source material. Here is one example (try to ignore the excessive piano music).

As I understand it, closing remarks are not the place to introduce new claims in a formal debate. David Silverman did not quite follow the debate rules in his opening statements and in several places in the course of the event. He made some interesting and unsustainable assertions about Neanderthals and the origin of religion in his conclusion. Being an atheist, he used the naturalistic evolutionary scientific principle of Making Things Up™. That fits, because his naturalistic subjective morality is inconsistent and unlivable. Perhaps that would explain the desperate-sounding "Oooooh! Aaaaah!" sounds while Dr. White was talking, as if those were "Gotcha!" moments. Silverman didn't get a gotcha, except those he inflicted on himself.

I recommend that Christians watch this video. There are two specific things I'd like you to notice. First, theology is vitally important when having a debate or a protracted discussion with an unbeliever. Many Christians try to refute evolution and atheism by posting a captioned picture. (We share many of those at The Question Evolution Project, but the posts contain links and other text because we're hoping to edify and equip Christians.) You do not have to be an expert in every aspect of theology, else there would be almost nobody talking about it. But you do need to have a good working knowledge of Christian essentials, whether debating or not.

The second thing I'd like you to notice is the importance of presuppositional apologetics. Those of us who use it are infuriating to atheists and evolutionists, since we not only believe the Bible, but we show how their worldviews do not work. The biblical worldview, beginning in Genesis, is the only one that can consistently answer the basic questions of human experience. White made it clear that Silverman's worldview is based on his biases and preferences, not on reason or reality. I frustrate Calvinists because I refuse to identify as Calvinist or Arminian, but strongly affirm presupposition apologetics in many of my writings.

I need to add that what is seen is typical among atheists. I've heard Silverman before, and much of this was very similar to other debates. Other atheist debaters (whether anonymous keyboard warriors or others) are very much like what you will hear in this debate. They equivocate on definitions, change the subject, attack the person, misrepresent people and positions, and more. Then they consider people like Silverman to be brilliant. Not hardly! Illogical thinkers applaud each other for affirming their preconceptions.

Here's the hard part: the video is intimidating at first because it is three hours long all told. However, there are some links in the video itself where you can skip the introductory remarks, skip the debate rules, and so on. David Silverman begins, and his opening remarks start at the 13 mini. 50 sec. mark. Also, the audience questions begin at 2 hrs. 34 min. 39 sec., so the debate itself is just over two hours. So, get your chips and soda, get comfortable, and here is the video when you're ready.

July 4, 2017

Liberty or the Collective?

When individual liberties thrive, there is a sense of accountability and a sense of wanting justice. For example, in the Soviet Union, atheist Stalin pushed for the collectivization of farms, where individuals were made to be inferior through propaganda and actual coercion. Can't have peasants owning and harvesting their own land, can we? No! We must work together for the common good of the Soviet, and you will be rewarded with farm equipment. Otherwise, what little you have will be taken away. This horrible procedure led to despair, famine, cannibalism, and more. 

 “Strengthen working discipline in collective farms” USSR propaganda poster
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Totalitarian regimes emphasize the "common good" (or "greater good") of whatever those in power have decreed. People have little hope or expectation of justice. Such governments are usually riddled with corruption (the aforementioned Soviet Union was famous for corruption). Want to get something done? Have a bribe handy. 

Countries with some semblance of God-given liberty and the dignity of the individual, are much more likely to thrive. Science thrives in the proper environment, and individuals can be rewarded. They also voluntarily work for the good of the societies in which they live. Those of us in the West tend to take our freedoms for granted — until they are threatened by those who essentially want to collectivize us under totalitarianism. Then we fight to keep our liberties.
When citizens are taught that they cannot help themselves, the outcome is predictable: social breakdown and increased criminal behavior.
This headline might surprise some left-leaning, materialist philosophers in academia: “Belief in free will predicts criminal punishment support, disapproval of unethical actions.” Social scientists at the University of Minnesota surveyed 65,000 individuals from 46 countries, some with governments that respect individual liberty and some with dictatorial or corrupt governments. Here’s what they say they found:
You can find out what they found and read the rest of this article by clicking on "Freedom Exalts a Culture".

June 23, 2017

Clean Living and the Bible

Seems that when something is written and then shared about something beneficial in the Bible, mockers will invariably make vacuous comments about "fairy tales written by illiterate Bronze Age goat herders", and then congratulate themselves on the superior intellect of The Mighty Atheist™. If they were intellectually honest, they'd be forced to admit that there are things contained within that are helpful in many ways.

No, this post isn't exactly about morality, it's about physical cleanliness. The Bible has a lot to say, and if people paid attention, quite a few situations involving the spread of disease would have been contained. For that matter, although homosexuality is an abomination before God, it also spreads disease.

Jesus healing lepers Bible health information disease
The Healing of Ten Lepers, James Tissot, 1886-1896, Brooklyn Museum
Ever see that first Alien movie? We were saying, "Don't open the door and let the guy into the ship!" (As if anyone could hear us, obey, and we'd have watched a very short flick.) They let it in, and chaos ensued. It's a strange example, but a possible "contagion" should have been isolated. 

Scoffers like to malign the Old Testament as if God's commands to have lepers separate themselves, pottery that came in contact with infected people should be destroyed, bodily waste could not be in the camp, and other things, were not just examples of God being cranky and arbitrary. No, there were excellent reasons.

Interesting that many discoveries in medical practices (such as hand washing under running water, and containment) had their basis way back in the Old Testament. They were not discovered, they were rediscovered. Add to biblical principles the modern antiseptics and isolation, things are not quite so widespread. Our Creator and Redeemer had provisions for our physical health as well as our eternal destiny.
Old diseases that had been considered to be no longer health problems are re-emerging in importance. . . What is worse, there is no cure or vaccine for many of these deadly diseases.

On the positive side, the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, provide tremendous insight and relief concerning disease prevention. Remarkably, the Pentateuch is regarded as the earliest evidence we have of sound public health and sanitary practices. These ancient writings, when used in conjunction with modern medicine, can break the mode of transmission of virtually every scourge known to humanity.

What follows is a brief summary of the biblical instructions pertaining to public health and sanitation. Bear in mind that these regulations were practiced some 3,500 years before the germ concept of disease was discovered (mainly by the creationist Louis Pasteur)!
To read the rest, click on "The First Book of Public Hygiene". 

June 7, 2017

Donald Trump, the Paris Accord, and Globalism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

President Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and leftists are in a frenzy. Not that it takes much to put them into a frenzy, as this lunatic comparing Trump to Kim Jong-un before the withdrawal was official aptly demonstrates. Interesting comparison, but we're not the ones calling for the punishment of global warming "deniers". If you dare to doubt the Holy Sacraments of the left, such as global warming/climate change, abortion, gun control, sexual perversion, and to some extent, evolution, you are calling down the fire. Why do you think I use an unregistered assault keyboard?

Is Trump wrong to leave the Paris Agreement only five months into his eight years of presidency? After all, we don't want the entire planet to overheat, and it would be nice if leftists stopped smashing store windows and burning dumpsters (which may contribute to global warming). There are several serious questions to consider, but we're not getting the truth from the leftist fake news media.

Images are public domain, background from the Library of Congress,
the others from Clker clipart
Actually, there is no evidence for anthropogenic global warming, despite the skewed data and "consensus" non-science that gets reported. Bill Nye the Pretend Scientist in a Bow Tie has a lot to say, but gets put in his place by people who actually have knowledge about global warming. Climate change arguments cited by leftists are spurious. In fact, the "consensus" is not all that it's cracked up to be, and there are serious doubts about said consensus.

If you study on it a spell, you'll realize that global climate change hysteria is based on deep time evolutionary thinking, and that there is no God who is in control, so his promises in his written Word are meaningless. Biblical creationists know that our duty is to have good stewardship of Earth, but we are not called to cave in to globalists with a political agenda that is disguised as concern for the world. We also trust our Creator. For a serious, thoughtful, biblical, and definitely not sarcastic analysis of the Paris Agreement, I strongly recommend that you read the transcript or get the MP3 of Dr. Albert Mohler's podcast on the June 2, 2017 episode of The Briefing.

May 30, 2017

Happy Anniversary to Me

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is my first and longest-running weblog, and this is its tenth anniversary. It's kind of fun to look back and note the many changes. Near the beginning, I assumed a persona of an Italian tough guy, and mentioned my "crew". Several of the people were real, and some were completely made up (Tommy the Knocker comes to mind, I was thinking of the mythical creatures called tommyknockers at the moment). Then, as now, I wrote about whatever seemed interesting at the time. Many posts were written on my lunch break at the workplace. Back then, I didn't have the "Cowboy" moniker.

Credit: Clker clipart
I was writing about politics for a spell, but lost heart and interest for a couple of reasons. First, I recommitted my life to Jesus Christ, which became a priority. Second, Caliph B. Hussein Obama became the child emperor of the United States. But my interest in Christian material was rekindled, especially biblical creation science, which led to "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman". I deleted a hundred or more of the posts and articles from this weblog later on.

Something that I found interesting in this journey. One is my writing style has changed (and I believe it's for the better), but I'm not trying too hard right now, this is a free-thought conversational-type piece. Lots of research for articles and posts — by the way, my distinction is that articles are original material, and posts have introductions, excerpts, and links to keep reading a featured article.

I've also learned that I don't want to trust Fair Use on images any more than I need to. Most of what I post is from sites that host free images, or public domain images (the US government has many of those). While I may have been on safe legal ground when using images, I didn't want to take chances and rode the safer trail.

Research has been very educational, and I followed many rabbit trails where one thing leads to another: I start with, say, free clipart, see a link to Fair Use, and eventually find myself reading about an old rock band I used to hear. Not so much of that when I'm under time pressure. Although my web search skills have improved, so has search engine software. I can find what I'm looking for most of the time, but some things are very difficult to locate.

Writing here was almost a daily thing, but now it's mostly an archive and maybe a bit of a journal. I'll still put things here, but it seems to have become monthly. Regular readers are pretty much gone, and that's my doing because if you don't write, they can't come over to read. Right?

May 21, 2017

Atheism, Religion, and Reality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There's a whole whack of supporting links and recommended resources in this article. This is not a blanket approval for everything on every site, so I reckon that people have to use their discernment when reading other material at those sites, you savvy?

To hear some professing atheists talk, they want to usher in an age of science and reason, which should be accomplished by doing away with religion and superstition. They get mighty ornery when someone points out that atheism itself is a religion, and don't even want to look at the evidence. What they are attempting to do is proselytize people into their fundamentally flawed worldview, and distance themselves from the religion moniker. The principle of "separation of church and state" that they misrepresent when bullying through litigation could backfire on the religion of atheism.

I'll allow that atheists generally do not have a formal confession of faith or attend meetings, but many find their identities in atheism, and it gives them a purpose in their lives. (Not a good purpose, since atheists are not the ones building schools and hospitals, providing relief efforts, and so on. Some may join in with helping their fellow humans, but it's obvious that Christian organizations are the ones doing the heavy lifting.) A few atheists admit that they have a religion, and a few more admit that theirs is a worldview, but most claim the disingenuous redefinition of atheism as "lack of belief".

Where do professing atheists get their morality and ethics? The do not have a consistent moral standard, so they their morality comes from societal trends, arbitrary philosophies and excuses, and especially from evolution. How the failed evolutionary philosophy of "survival of the fittest" can provide anything beyond selfishness escapes me. For more on atheism, religion, evolution, and so on, see "Atheist Denies Atheism Is a Religion".

Many atheopaths simply hate the God that they pretend does not exist, and seek to make the lives of Christians miserable. Note that they do not spend much time on Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moslems, Buddhists, the Annunaki and Nibiru, or other non-Christian religions. This is an unintentional and indirect confirmation of what the Bible says about them. More about that later.

Atheists are illogical and intellectually dishonest

Although the Mighty Atheist™ may think he has super powers, critical thinking is not his strong suit. Nor is basic human decency. Trolling, misrepresentation, straw men, ad hominem attacks, bullying, genetic fallacy, acting like the atheistic equivalent of internet MS-13 gang members, insisting that their faith in science is science, and many more instances of intolerance are found, but things that make them likeable and rational? That'll be the day! Many consistently and blatantly misrepresented our positions. 

There is an atheopath who claims to "debunk" creation science and The Question Evolution Project in particular. Like many others, he constantly misrepresents creationists. He does not read the material, insists that I debate him on his Fazebook Page, and calls me a coward for refusing to waste my time in a prolonged discussion, yet refuses to give his name. It further reduces his respectability that he is unable to recognize that through a few brief comments, I have already defeated him in logic, shown him to be dishonest, and that anti-theism presupposes theism (they rip off our worldview in order to criticize it.) He has no originality, either — confiscates other people's work for La Revolución and twists it. So anyway. Antony Flew was an atheist for years, then admitted that evidence (especially DNA) convinced him that God exists. However, he apparently never became a believer in Jesus Christ. The one I mentioned above made the following comment and lied outright about Flew's conversion. In addition, he demonstrated dreadful reasoning that strikes me as a relative of the genetic fallacy, that Flew was right while he was an atheist and met with this jasper's approval, then he was wrong because his belief system changed:

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
In Christian theology, the concept that sin has affected all areas of the unbeliever, including the ability to reason, is called the noetic effects of sin. It helps explain the intellectual dishonesty of atheism.

When atheists, who claim to love science, logic, and reason, demand scientific proof that God exists, they have already misfired on the draw. Why? Because that is a logical fallacy known as the category error or category mistake. (You can't use material means to test for the immaterial, Skippy.) Since thinking is hard, many attack the Bible instead. When given evidence that the Bible is trustworthy, they double down on their prejudicial conjectures, as discussed in "Doubt the Bible? You Might be a Conspiracy Theorist". Many well-intentioned Christians think that if they give atheists and evolutionists enough evidence, they will renounce their positions and submit themselves to God. This seldom works, and is actually dishonoring to God. You may end up with a Deist like Antony Flew, who is just as lost as a full-gallop atheist.

Like other unregenerate people, atheists are under Satan's control (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14. 2 Cor. 4:4) and are enemies of God (Matt. 12:30 Rom. 5:10). When unbelievers say, "Prove to me that God exists, but leave the Bible out of it" and wants you to be neutral, a saying from Dr. Greg Bahnsen is worth remembering: they aren't, and you shouldn't be. That's because neutrality is a myth. The unbeliever is presupposing materialism and the rejection of God, and we are saddling up on his horse at his ranch and riding the trail of his choosing. Essentially, we agreeing with him by denying what God says about the unsaved. By letting the unbeliever decide whether or not God exists using his or her fallen, corrupt "wisdom", we are not only letting him put God on trial, but making his authority superior to the Word of God! The Christian is supposed to uphold the authority of Scripture. Satan fell from Heaven because of pride, and has been using it ever since. Note the extreme arrogance and pride of many professing atheists; we cannot be supporting their egos and pride.

You will not find anywhere in the Bible where a prophet, apostle, Jesus, or anyone else saw fit to prove either the existence of God or the historicity of Genesis. No, they started with the presupposition that God is real and the entire Word of God is true. The Bible tells us plainly that those who claim to be atheists know that God exists, but are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-22). This explains why they spend a disproportionate amount of time railing against God and his people instead of other groups. 

At this point, you may wonder if I'm advocating fideism and rejecting the presentation of evidence. Not hardly! Christians and creationists use a passel of evidence. It is not to be used to convince someone who is hostile to the faith, but when someone says, "I have something that I'd like to understand", we can use evidence to help remove a stumbling block to faith. Although evidence, science, whatever, are subordinate to the Word of God, they also help strengthen the faith of Christians. 

The biblical creationist worldview is the only one that comports with reality. Logic, science, evidence, morality, and those other things that atheists claim to believe in are actually impossible in their worldview. When they appeal to the uniformity and consistency of nature, right and wrong, and the laws of the universe, they are actually standing on our worldview, since belief in a godless random chance universe is inconsistent and irrational.

Insisting on his Scientism and reaching a conclusion via circular reasoning
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
EDIT: In responding to this post about illogical questions such as, "Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?" (which implies the legitimacy of belief in square circles and so forth). He states it's a valid question, but it is actually quite irrational. By making this claim, he has finalized his disqualification from serious consideration in any logical discussion. I wonder if he's too young to be on Facebook.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
What I'm doing is using presuppositional apologetics. Atheists hate this apologetic because it shows how their epistemology (study of knowledge) mixes in metaphysics, and that their worldview is irrational and inconsistent — and deflates their pride. They commence to circling the wagons and opening fire on us when we point out that we all have our ultimate starting points. Ours is the Word of God, theirs is materialism, which makes science and reason impossible. They really get on the prod when we point out that atheists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves. Atheist bigots establish an arbitrary standard with which they contemptuously judge others who have the temerity to disagree with their opinions and dismantle their reasoning.
You scientific people build up whole philosophies on the basis of things you never saw, and you scoff at people who believe in other things that you think they never saw and that don't come under what you label scientific. You talk about paradoxes—why, your scientist, who thinks he is the most skeptical, the most materialistic aggregation of atoms ever gathered at the exact mathematical centre of Missouri, has more blind faith than a dervish, and more credulity, more superstition, than a cross-eyed smoke beating it past a country graveyard in the dark of the moon!
— Outburst from Larry O'Keefe in Abraham Merritt's The Moon Pool

I have the opinion that anti-creationists and atheists are becoming more obstreperous because their father down below knows that his time is short, so he's using his hand puppets to try to destroy the faith of as many Bible believers as he can. Christians, I'd be very much obliged if y'all would take the time to read a couple of articles that explain these things far better than I can. First, "Help In Understanding Presuppositionalism". This is at "Theocentric Living", which is unfortunately not being maintained any longer. (The comments areas show the importance of comment moderation.) Next is a longer article that has some overlap with t'other, but presents some good basics, "What Is Presuppositional Apologetics?"

Digging deeper, I strongly recommend Dr. Jason Lisle's book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, and there is a video for sale as well as versions of talks on the subject on YouTube, such as this one. Many articles from various authors are linked at The Domain for Truth, which also has a variety of posts.

While we are to present the gospel to everyone who asks (1 Peter 3:15) and tear down fortresses against the knowledge of the truth (2 Cor. 10:3-5), we must do it in a Christ-honoring way. That means holding fast to the Word, and not allowing the unbeliever to judge God. Evidence and science are important, even exciting, but our apologetic needs to be in a presuppositional framework: do not use "neutral ground". Take note: it's not about evidence or science, salvation is a spiritual matter. We do use our minds, but they deny the existence of the soul or spirit. Further, it is not our job to do the conviction or saving through our own brilliant argumentation (1 Cor. 2:4-5), that's the work of the Holy Spirit. We have to do our part and trust the results to God.


Subscribe in a reader