November 20, 2017

Congress, Atheism, and Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Jared Huffman, a Democrat Congressman from California, recently "came out" as a Humanist. There is no appreciable difference between Humanists and atheists, though some theists call identify as Humanists because they have a low view of the Bible and elevate humans to the highest priority. Huffman does not go on record as endorsing atheism, but says he does not believe in God. He seems to be politically timid, keeping mum about his beliefs for years (atheists generally do not get elected). He felt he had to finally admit his views.

The Democrat party has a disdain for God and the Bible, and Huffman believes in homosexual "rights", he is pro-abortion, and just what you'd expect from a leftist in general. Identifying as a Humanist, or atheist (or maybe he'll change to agnostic), should fit in well with the current political climate.

I want to interject something here. Atheists are materialists, rejecting God and the supernatural (except for those who identify as atheists but still believe in such things, go figure) and most are pro-abortion. It seems to be that they are amazingly inconsistent by supporting abortion if this is the only life anyone has. Wouldn't it be consistent for atheists as a whole to be vehemently pro-life instead of denying the unborn a chance at living? Just a thought.

As we have seen here many times, professing atheists are appallingly bad at using logic, but claim to be the purveyors of reason. Some samples of Huffman's comments help illustrate what I mean. First, "...I don’t believe my religion is all that important to the people I represent..." Sounds like an off the cuff remark, not something that has been communicated to him by all those people. It is also a hasty generalization, such as used when saying that all 8,000+ of those who "Like" The Question Evolution Project are hateful bigots."

...and I think there’s too much religion in politics." Really? Politics is made up of people, it is not a monolith, such as some people make of science. People have foibles, views, biases, altruism, presuppositions — and religious beliefs. Atheists (and so-called Humanists) are on a secularist jihad to remove any semblance of Christianity from American society. Huffman's constituents, if there are any Christians left in the area he represents, should be alarmed.

Also note this remark in the leftist Washington Post“On Thursday, he will release a statement saying he is a Humanist, a loose philosophy based on the idea that humans should work to improve society and live ethically, guided by reason, not necessarily by anything supernatural.” This is not only a question-begging epithet (subtly saying that Humanists/atheists use "reason" and people who believe in God reject reason), but it is also poisoning the well and manipulating emotions: you don't want to admit that you're a theist and have people think you're stupid, unlike The Mighty Atheist™, do you?

Atheism is illogical, inconsistent, and irrational, and it lacks the necessary preconditions of human experience. Those preconditions are only found in the biblical worldview, beginning with creation. If Jared Huffman decides to say he's an agnostic, well, that worldview is also lacking in reason. This tinhorn is doing the politician thing. Such doubletalk is typical of atheists, to say something without coming out and being direct so he cannot be pinned down.

Dr. Albert Mohler has an insightful analysis of the Jared Huffman situation in The Briefing. It's free to download, listen online, or read the transcript. I hope you will do so, just click on "The Briefing 11-14-17".

November 7, 2017

Grief and Pain from the Texas Shooter

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article contains a time-sensitive link that may expire soon, at which point, it will be deleted.

The murders of people in Sutherland Springs, Texas, has stirred many emotions. Grief, pain, anger, and others. It has also raised questions about how a loving God could allow this, what were the motives, and just...why? We will never have all the answers tied up in a neat package. We can find some of them.

Christians have hope and comfort despite grief such as caused by Kelley the atheist in Sutherland, Texas
Credit: Pixabay / MissSuss
At this writing, the motives are not known. I'm not going to varnish this, we already know that the killer was a seriously disturbed, violent atheist. Some are saying the motive was because of a domestic situation, others say "unknown" and "uncertain". The rampage may have been far worse if the shooter was not interrupted by the heroic actions of Stephen Willeford. If the motive was due to hatred of his mother-in-law, he could have killed only her elsewhere. The fact that he did this rampage during a church worship service speaks volumes about his moral fiber, and of society today.

Christians have been asking us to pray for the families and the community. (Of course, the leftist governor of New York is politicizing and ridiculing prayer, but we seen many times that the left has disdain for Bible believers.) Still, people are hurting. We can pray that they are comforted and that their faith remains strong. God is still on his throne, and there will be healing and ultimate Judgement. Kelley reportedly killed himself after the massacre, but his eternal problems are just beginning.

The day after the massacre, Ken Ham wrote a short post , "We Now Grieve with a Texas Church". This contains two free downloads: an e-book and a video in two parts. Although I have not read and watched the items, I can say that the process was easy. I hope they will help those who are hurting and have questions.

I'm going to take us on a side trail before I conclude this article.

The killer was an atheist. Not only that, but he apparently knew the truth of God's Word and rejected in. Someone will undoubtedly object, "There is no evidence that he did his killing in the name of atheism!", or some such. A similar objection is raised when Christians point out that the greatest mass murderers were either atheists, Darwinists, or both, bringing to mind what I call the "No True Atheist Fallacy".

Whether a proclamation of atheism was made or not, Kelley and other atheists have a faulty moral compass — they have no consistent, ultimate standard of morality. Indeed, there was really nothing of significance to stop Kelley, Breivik, McVeigh, Dahmer, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others from killing people. I have insisted for some time now that atheists are becoming more strident and angry, and expect that their violence will only increase. Their time is short, and the final Judgement is coming.

When I posted this link about the atheist killer at The Question Evolution Project, a venomous atheopath shared the post to his own page for his ongoing purpose of ridicule. Note his comment, which I highlighted in yellow (click for larger, if needed):

This is outrageous on several levels, and illustrates several scriptural truths (John 8:44, 2 Cor. 4:4, 1 Cor. 2:14). First, not the slightest indication of remorse for the shooting, nor regret that it was done by one of his own kind. Second, people are responsible for their own actions (a concept that leftists do not seem to realize any longer — and most atheists are leftists, by the way). Third, what is the "religious right"? It is a vague phrase used to elicit fear and anger by those who wish to manipulate others who are driven by emotion instead of reason. Fourth, it is a red herring fallacy, a distraction. Fifth, atheists do not trust other atheists. EDIT: To see how this reprobate proved me right, click here.

I do not say this lightly, especially since the term is far overused today, but based on that comment and others this guy has made: he is evil. Not as bad as Kelley, but it would not surprise me in the least to learn that he approves of the murders. Yes, I've seen professing atheists applaud the deaths of Christians.

Dr. Albert Mohler said:
In one very important dimension, this demonstrates why the Christian worldview is so utterly different than every other worldview. Atheism, for instance, must affirm that, at its base, human life is merely a series of accidents. There is no Creator, so there is no human being made in the Creator’s image. Of course atheists would clearly classify this murderous attack in Sutherland Springs, Texas, as evil, but they have no real ability to understand or to embrace the notion of evil with any coherence. Evil is essentially a theological category.
When an atheist does bother to say something is evil, he or she is inadvertently standing on the Christian worldview! Atheism has no consistent moral standard, and is irrational. No wonder they have to use our ultimate standard.

Now we're back to the main trail, and I will conclude this article.

There is hope and comfort in Jesus. Dr. Albert Mohler has an excellent article (excerpted above) that I hope you will read. Click on "Tragedy in Texas: Christian Testimony in the Face of Evil". We have hope and comfort. Those who deny God have no hope, but only a terrifying eternal destiny unless they repent.

November 5, 2017

Leftist Science Industry Rejects Research On Motherhood

Science is supposed to be a search for knowledge, with scientists considering evidence, proposing hypotheses, then running them up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes them. When ideas are refuted, they accept the changes and try something else. Problem is, that scenario is fictitious. (For that matter, when people claim that "science has proved" something are showing their ignorance of the philosophy and methodology of science.) Scientists, medical doctors, and others have refuted consensus views and been resisted. For example, Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that the mortality rate of women giving birth could be drastically reduced with antiseptics, but he was ignored by the establishment.

Scientific research supports the bond between mothers and children, but leftists reject it
Sara and Her Mother with the Baby, Mary Cassat, 1901
Scientists and the secular scientific establishment seem to be increasingly biased nowadays, especially to viewpoints propagated by leftists. Something that is in opposition to the Bible is celebrated, even when they try to slap leather with God and shoot themselves in the foot with fake science. A report of what Bible believers already knew, that daughters need their fathers, was touted as a new scientific finding.

Erica Komisar is a Jewish psychoanalyst who works in Manhattan, New York. She presented some scientific work about the bond between mothers and children, and how it continues after birth. He research was resisted. Why? She's not a professing Christian or a biblical creationist (secularists and leftists detest us). I suspicion that this may give some doubt to the sacrament of abortion, which is sacred among leftists and other secularists. Indeed, the pseudoscience of evolution is used to give abortion is given "scientific" credence.

Dr. Albert Mohler inspired me to write the above linked post on fathers and daughters, and he put a burr under my saddle to write this post as well. Now I'm going to send you to his podcast, The Briefing, which is free to listen online, download, or read the transcript. It follows his discussion on the Manhattan terrorist attack, third item down. Look for "Inconvenient science: Secular left refuses to acknowledge research on motherhood".

October 22, 2017

More On Atheistic Straw Man "Reasoning"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

At first glance, this may look like a basic reaction to vindictive atheists. Nope. It's a whole heap more than that, showing how professing atheists and anti-creationists resort to contemptible methods in their efforts to silence biblical creationists.

As shown in numerous posts here, on my Piltdown Superman site, The Question Evolution Project Fazebook Page, and at numerous other sites and forums, the typical village atheist who trolls the internet demonstrates very little ability to use logic. In addition, they often seek to justify what passes as morality in their world by railing against God by using selective citation of biblical texts (that is, woefully out of context) and straw man arguments. A couple of tinhorns consistently wants to slap leather with me and "debate", but there is no sense in defending positions I don't hold. 

Background image from Clker clipart
I have long maintained that atheopaths are made stupid by their blind hatred of God and his followers. Several times, I've seen discussions that were moving along quite nicely, then quickly degenerate when professing atheists let their inner demons and hatred come out, and their reasoning became incoherent. 

Recently, I wrote an article on dreadful atheistic and anti-creationist reasoning (see "How Biblical Creationists Are Refuted, Or, "How Do I Refute Thee? Let Me Count the Ways...") True to form, some angry atheopaths reacted, using a couple of tactics: ridicule the person instead of dealing rationally with the content, and also setting up straw man arguments. (Ironically, they proved my article to be correct.) The venom was so thick, I slipped in a puddle of it and almost fell. Well, if it was literal, it would have puddled on the floor. Anyway, the vituperative ridicule was extended to an article I posted regarding atheistic reasoning. 

Interesting, Creation Ministries International posted their article on the same day that I posted mine. I shared it to The Question Evolution Project. A furious atheopath shared my post of CMI's post to his Page for the purpose of ridicule. He commented, "So to try to rebut the claim that creationists ignore science, you post a link to an organization which outright admits to ignoring evidence that contradicts the [B]ible? Lol". He didn't like my comment on my own Page. I wrote, "An atheopath liar said...[previously quoted text]...Aside from an appeal to motive fallacy, this tinhorn lied outright about CMI. They ADMIT to "ignoring evidence that contradicts the [B]ible"? Dishonest assertion. And he thinks he's worth debating? That'll be the day! -CBB". 

He responded with a post full of ad hominem remarks and other fallacies, plus a screenshot of some of CMI's "About Us" section. This section was emphasized in his screenshot: "Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record". The sneaky atheist accused me of stupidity and lying, and he lied about CMI when he said, "...They come right out and say that they're going to ignore anything that doesn't fit what they already want to believe". They did not say this. He conveniently twisted their words (he's an atheopath, they do that, it's who they are) and set up a straw man by ignoring key words in his own quote, especially the word interpretation. Meanwhile, as this blackguard lies and misrepresents creationists, atheopaths cheer him on, applauding like palsied spider monkeys but offering nothing of substance. Just hate.

Something else I've said for a long time is that a fact is a fact, people are not disputing the existence of facts, and there is no such thing as your facts and our facts. The disagreements come from interpretations of facts. You can have a fossil and say that it's 200 million Darwin years old. I can say it was buried in the Genesis Flood a few thousand years ago. Two interpretations, the only definite fact in this scenario is the fossil. See how that works? 

Someone who was intellectually honest and not blinded by hate might want to cowboy up and examine more than just one sentence in CMI's "About Us" section. Since it's easier for rapscallions like that to ignore the truth and avoid doing their homework, guess I'll have to show why his "proof" is actually a manipulative lie. See how the word interpret(ation) is used in these examples:

Christians and especially biblical creationists should be above the accusatory nature of our detractors. See how easy it is to refute the refuters? Don't be like them. Be able to intelligently back up your claims, because we represent Christ. They represent their father down below. EDIT: He proved me right again by sharing the link to this post, ignoring the content, and reaffirming the previous lie in a comment under the post.

By the way, this guy is also angry at losing one of his many fake name troll accounts. I'm sure I'm getting the blame:

October 16, 2017

Morality and the Crowd

The source of morality is disputed among secularists, some claim that it comes from evolution, some say it is based on society, some postulate other sources. People who have a materialistic view of morality cannot have a consistent moral standard, and end up with disastrous speculations when they suppress the truth.

Riot in the Galleria, Umberto Boccioni, 1909
I reckon it should be common sense that you can't follow the crowd. (Isn't following society's dictates a form of just "following the crowd"?) I don't like crowds, you never know when they can get mean. Things get out of hand, next thing you know, the saloon's ceiling is shot full of holes, the town marshal and his buddies show up, and guys spend a few nights in lockup, even after they get sober. Individually, if you asked these rambunctious patrons about right and wrong, they'd have told you differently than what they did that night in the saloon. Those jaspers knew better than to get rowdy and do bad stuff, but they done did them things anyhow.

You may want to keep an eye out for something, that people will (as I call it) recruit others to their "cause". It's very childish, like a school child who is angry with a teacher and wants people to join in with the hate. Mayhaps they'll scrape paint off the teacher's car or something. Then they get caught, and know they did wrong. Deep inside, they know they were doing wrong all along — even the hating part.

In the US, we see the Antifa sidewinders ("anti-fascist", my joyfully bouncing buttocks, they are the ones acting like fascists and then blaming others), Black Lives Matter racists, and others recruiting for their irrational causes. On the internet, you can find atheopaths who are furious at being shown the incoherence of their views, then banned from Pages or forums, seeking others to join with the trolling of those who were "unfair" and performed "censorship" on them.

What if you were able to talk to these people one-on-one? They know what is right and wrong down deep inside (Romans. 2:15). Get people into a crowd (or the larger crowd of a society), and the actions of others, groupthink, prompt them to suppress their inner knowledge of morality and follow what everyone else is doing.
“But everybody else is doing it!” Have you ever heard or made this argument? If “everybody else is doing it,” you should be allowed to do whatever “it” is too, right? A new study revealed that “our view of what is morally right or wrong is shaped by how widespread a particular behavior is.”
To read the rest of the article, click on "Is Morality Determined by Its Popularity?"

October 7, 2017

Can Secular Science Peer Review be Repaired?

There are people who consider peer review as the gold standard in science, and it is somehow a guarantee of truth. Not hardly!

As we have seen, the secular science industry is becoming increasingly biased and involved in leftist political activism. Add to this the fact that their peer review process discriminates against creationists, has numerous retractions, passes junk (including computer-generated papers), and is pretty much a good ol' boys' club. Their image has a bad complexion, and some scientists are calling for major changes.

Secular peer review in science needs better ethics. According to atheistic standards? It will not work.
Made at, then modified with colors
Unfortunately, the sidewinders in charge want to circle the wagons and maintain the status quo. They don't want transparency and accountability. Others want to improve ethical standards. Wait, what? People who reject the Creator and his Word have no consistent moral standard are going to decide what is right and wrong? Scientists are people, complete with presuppositions, knavery, altruism, varieties of morality, and the whole shootin' match that comes with being a human living in a fallen world. Something is missing from their plan.
Peer review is under attack with new move to combat fraud and special interest through integrity and transparency. But where do those come from?
Big Science remains in crisis. reports on a study that found “More than a quarter of biomedical scientific papers may utilise practices that distort the interpretation of results or mislead readers so that results are viewed more favourably.” That has certainly been our experience at CEH, daily watching the press releases emanating from university PR departments, where the name of the game is to make your scientist look good no matter how questionable the findings. Public acceptance of scientific claims tracks political party affiliation to a remarkable degree. Allegations of conflict of interest, peer pressure and funding bias are rife. What has happened to the presumptive authority of the science, seeking objective knowledge for its own sake?
To finish reading, click on "Big Science Struggling to Regain Credibility".

September 23, 2017

Bill Nye the Atheism Shill Guy Rides Again

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Many people are baffled as to why a saddle tramp comedy actor turned children's television show host who never bothered to get an advanced science degree is considered an expert on practically everything. Bill Nye is called a "science guy", and did fairly well when he did actual science. Amazingly, his net worth is rated at 6.5 million USD, probably because atheistic propaganda pays well — just ask C. Richard Dawkins. Nye hopes to gain more from his lawsuit against Disney. Why he did not sue years ago, I have no idea. Even so, if he deserves the money, he should get it.

The way I see the way things happening, he became popular when he attacked biblical creationists, and especially Answers in Genesis. Dr. Georgia Purdom of AiG challenged Nye to a debate (which he dodged), and he eventually settled for a debate with Ken Ham, who has a bachelor's degree in applied science. Ham also earned a Diploma of Education so he could become a science teacher way back when. (Both Nye and Ham have honorary doctorates.) Bill Nye used outdated and inaccurate science claims, and also underhanded tactics in the debate with Ken Ham. I'll allow that the debate format was poor, and gave Nye the opportunity to use elephant hurling and other fallacies. For more on that event, see "Reflections on the Ken Ham - Bill Nye Debate". I recommend "We Have a Book for That", which shows the fundamentally flawed foundations of Nye and his secularist cohorts.

Here are some skillful edits of a Nye photo for your amusement.

Moving on...

After Bill Nye made a fool of himself in the debate with Ken Ham (with great applause from biased secularist owlhoots who are unskilled in both science and logic), he eventually went on to write a propaganda book. In addition, he gained a television show, Bill Nye Saves the World, on the pay channel called Netflix. Apparently, he wants to save the world from science and critical thinking, preferring to promote leftist and atheist views. However, his preachy demeanor is putting off his fans, and it apparently lacks actual science.

Now he has a movie? You betcha! Bill Nye: Science Guy takes shots at creation science, especially Ken Ham. Selective citing was employed, as well as blatant falsehoods and more bad science. See "Bill Nye: Science Guy or Secular Activist?" for more. By the way, ever notice that the real debate between Ham and Nye, as well as the Nye snark fest "second debate", are posted for free viewing by Answers in Genesis, but Bill's fans do not direct people to those?

People are becoming increasingly suspicious of the leftist slant of the secular science industry. Well, there's mucho dinero in evolutionary "discoveries" and conjectures presented as real science, you know. For that matter, secularists seem to applaud any  fuel for dumpster burning that attacks the Bible, such as their self-humiliating "Canaanites disprove the Bible" fiasco. Let's face it, the secular science industry is highly biased nowadays, and shills like Bill Nye are highly unlikely to be giving us the truth.

This all comes down to something that people do not want to hear: rebellion against God. That's right, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-23) so they can justify denying God. If some folks are willing to graciously grant God his existence in their philosophies, then they reject the authority of his Word in their pride. It's their nature, and who they are. People must humble themselves, repent, and find out what our Creator has to say in his Word. 

Subscribe in a reader