Things worth reading 

Here are some good articles, blogs etc worth looking into.

1. Erotic Liberty vs Freedom

http://www.albertmohler.com/2017/03/21/gathering-storm-religious-liberty-wake-sexual-revolution/

2. Down Syndrome in Denmark  = Jews between 1939-45 in Germany 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/28/trump-ask-denmarks-pm-government-promoting-genocide/

3. Fear of Islamophobia

http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/27/political-islam-todays-anti-american-long-march-institutions/

4. Media hypocrisy 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14885/tyranny-california-criminally-charges-undercover-ben-shapiro

5. Canaanite Genocide?

http://www.resistancetv.org/2017/02/28/canaanite-genocide-part-1/

http://www.resistancetv.org/2017/03/06/god-command-genocide-part-2-3/

http://www.resistancetv.org/2017/03/13/god-command-genocide-part-3-3/

An atheist stumbles around in the dark…part 1?

So far the second worst atheist I’ve come across, and by worst I don’t mean morally bankrupt even though this person’s views on infanticide are utterly disgusting, is the blogger at Confessions of a Young Earth Creationist. This person is like a mini me version of Lawrence Krauss and if you think that’s a compliment you need your head examined. “Limey” is his handle and he’s a real piece of work. If I hadn’t met the FSN guy first Limey would be my pick for dumbass of the year…decade…whatever.

Christians aren’t “supposed to talk this way” about others, but part of the problem with contemporary American Christianity is that it has no bite. We’re nice when we shouldn’t be (to assholes, terrorists, arrogant morons) and we aren’t nice when we should be (to homosexuals, democrats, Muslims). “Limey” isn’t someone who we should be nice to. We should treat fundamentalist atheists with contempt. Not because they disagree with us but because the New Atheist hates reason, facts, and truth. The new atheist is an idiot. 

There are lots of Atheists I respect. Stefan Molyneaux is a very good atheist. But Limey is not someone I respect and he deserves to be called an asshat, because he is an asshat. This person has demonstrated (like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, and the mythicists) that he is deeply deeply ignorant and incapable of dealing with the relevant issues in a manner resembling intellectual responsibility. Limey’s blog is essentially a troll. It is a waste of time and should be called such. That’s all the New Atheists are: trolls. They are anti intellectuals like Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Donald Trump, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Samantha Bee, Barack Obama, and Isis. 

Civil responsible academic intellectual endeavor is hard, it requires discipline and virtue. It requires patience and reliance on those who are truly knowledgeable and wise. Sadly Limey has none of these qualities and refuses to pursue them.

Here is the turd part of Limey’s current attempt to deconstruct Theism:

https://confessionsofayec.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/twenty-arguments-for-god-three-the-argument-from-time-and-contingency/

So far each post has been equally terrible. In any case I feel some responsibility to attempt to help this lost soul and hopefully deter other lost souls from his errors by responding to Limey when I can. Usually it’s with comments but I don’t feel like cutting and pasting 20 comments today so I’m just going to put my responses here and just post this on Limey’s pathetic excuse for a blog (to be fair its far better maintained than this blog, but Limey’s content is abysmal). 

Here’s my responses:
Did you notice the bait and switch in this one?”

No but you’re about to very poorly attempt a bait and switch.

Before I address that though, I am noticing a pattern in these first three items. They all focus on the fact that the universe exists and because we (as in our current state of human knowledge) can’t explain why, therefore there must be a god that put it in place.”

That’s simply inaccurate. They are logical demonstrations based upon premises that are very hard to deny. As usual you misunderstood the argument.

At its most basic it is an argument from ignorance in that a god is inserted where there is no currently accepted explanation. The language has evolved into something more sophisticated and of course I would expect adherents to deny this assertion. They have to.”

This is just nonsense. You don’t understand logic, and you don’t understand the argument. I know you don’t understand logic because part of your “argument” here is a common form of an Ad Hominem, aka a fallacy. What is so ironic about these statements is that you presume this desperation on the part of a Theist like Kreeft to meet some kind of “Freudian Need” but that in and of itself is a genetic fallacy. Also both claims can be levied at you! You have no reason for thinking Kreeft needs to believe in God nor any reason for why a need like that means Theism is false. This is pathetic. Plantinga has destroyed this line of reasoning many decades ago.

The issue that this item tried to answer is that of infinite regress, a subject that will be revisited by later items I am sure. Whatever exists must have something that existed before it. A tree came from a seed which came from a previously existing tree and so on. The universe exists and so must come from something that existed before it. Therefore god. But wait, what about before god? Where is the super god that created the universe god? Why stop at the first god that is assumed from the existence of the universe? How can the author of this argument be sure of anything regarding the god that supposedly caused this universe? They can’t be sure, that’s the problem. They’ve presupposed a god then created an argument to support it, but as with all arguments for god, they can’t step beyond imagining, the imagined god can never be tested or confirmed. We are supposed to just accept it.”

The problem with this sort of reply is that you’ve actually granted the whole argument. It wouldn’t matter how many “gods” were between the physical universe and the initial cause. Whatever the first cause is, that we call god. It isn’t an argument for the truth or falsehood of the Christian God or any god, it’s a logical conclusion that there is an uncaused thing that causes all other things. That’s it. You do this quite often, grant the premise and the form but dispute the conclusion. This is a very poor attempt at a response.

This brings me to the bait and switch. See this bit.

There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being. This absolutely necessary being is God.

To paraphrase: before the universe, there must be something that caused it (not entirely unreasonable, but is it true? We should really test that before building arguments based on it.), that something must exist (so no test, just assume it’s true and carry on), that thing must be a being (oh?), and that being is god (boof, there it is!)
The bait and switch fallacy is explained more here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch”

There is no such thing as the bait and switch fallacy and rational wiki is a huge turd, it’s basically a parody website for anti theists to engage in an intellectual circle jerk. Bait and switch is an action that can be performed with words but it’s not fallacious, it’s simply lying or “tricking.”

Bait and switch is that empty book on the Amazon bestseller list. People paid for an ebook on Democrats that had no words in it. They thought they were getting a book but instead they got nothing.

A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. Believing a lie is simply being duped.
Lawrence Krause actually does bait and switch every time he claims that the Universe came from nothing. He’s actually openly admitted to lying about the fact that when he says nothing he doesn’t actually mean nothing, he means something. So in his view something comes from something…what a shock…and his ultimate response is that we’ve had to redefine nothing to not actually be nothing…in other words he’s granted the theist’s entire case because he’s a very arrogant stupid man. 

The bigger problem here is that yet again you granted the premise, albeit with some reservation, then brought your naive scientism back into play. The claim is a logical claim. It cannot be “tested” in the way you wish it to be tested. It must be “tested” with logic, something you have demonstrated yourself to be incapable of time and again. This is a truly epic fail on your part to respond to this argument.

“There is another issue with the argument that is presented in this item, which is the whole issue of before the universe. See this bit.

If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. But From nothing nothing comes. So The universe could not have begun. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized,


The author has forgotten (or maybe ignored) the very important detail that time is a feature of matter. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this already but I’ll do it again. How we experience time is directly related to our proximity to matter. The same is also true of how we experience gravity. This time experience is a calculatable and measurable phenomenon. It has to be accounted for in GPS satellites and it is the reason why your head is not the same age as your feet (https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet).
The ultimate conclusion from this is that time, as we understand and experience it, started with the universe. Thus the universe has existed for all of time and the question of what was before needs to first answer the difficulty of how you can have a before time. The author of this item has skipped a very important step in his rush to justify the god that he’s predetermined must exist.”

My god…I just don’t understand how you could possibly think that this is in any way a meaningful response. The idea you’re describing is actually incorrect. You’re speaking of subjective experience of time and gravity (which is evidence for dualism and a denial of materialism because subjective experience is by definition immaterial, everyone agrees on this Sam Harris and Dan Dennet included) in the context of a logical argument about sequence…which makes no sense, but also you’ve misunderstood that it is the gravitational force itself which causes time to function the way it does in relation to matter. So what you should have said was time is effected by gravity and gravity is dependent upon matter therefore time is dependent upon matter. But that argument is fallacious because time itself (a huge area of philosophical study) is not dependent upon gravity for its existence. Time would be possible without gravity, in fact the argument of a dependence relation between time and gravity makes no sense in the first place because gravity acts upon time, or effects time. That is why “time qua time” is studied by philosophers and not scientists. Scientists do study time and contribute to the philosophical discussion but ultimately the study of time is a logical one not a “scientific” study.

But more importantly if there were such a thing as the bait and switch fallacy (really it’s a red herring, which is probably what you actually meant) then you commit it constantly, especially here. Because your explanation of how you misunderstand time and beg the question that time is dependent upon matter had nothing to do with that last argument by Kreeft. This whole post really made very little sense, which is clearly your MO. Just like your heros Krause, Dawkins, Dennet, you make very little sense but try to sound “scientific” because like a pastor trying to speak Christianese you Scientismists think that sounding scientific means something is scientific. Kreeft’s arguments have nothing to do with science. They are philosophical, something you know nothing about so it’s unsurprising that you can’t comprehend these arguments. 

You are very very bad at this and really you should probably stop because your blog is itself a troll, it’s just a useless pointless piece of the internet. It’s like that empty book on Amazon. Anyone who comes here was baited and switched because they probably thought they might learn something…but you can’t learn something…from nothing.

Dick Carrier is Fake News

Dick Carrier is a materialist dogmatist who produces Ad Hoc research.

I am sort of making an Ad Hominem argument here…but that’s only a fallacy if a) character is irrelevant to the question at hand and b) it is alone.

Here is a fallacious ad hominem 

1) Trump is a mysoginist

2) Trump wants to build a wall between the US & Mexico

C: Building a wall between the US and Mexico is evil

Or even this

1) Trump is a racist

2) repeat of previous premise 2

C: repeat of previous conclusion 

The second argument is more relevant but still ultimately fallacious.

My argument against Dick Carrier is this 

P1: DC is a dogmatic materialist 

P2: DC is a Darwinist 

P3: P1 & P2 are incompatible with Christianity 

C: therefore DC’s anti Christian scholarship is ad hoc

This doesn’t make his work false it just makes it ignorable, and it’s one of the main reasons his stuff gets panned by Christians. I don’t expect people who believe the sorts of things that Dick Carrier believes to take Christian apologists seriously because he’s an atheist apologist. I don’t take Dick Dawkins seriously because like the first Dick I mentioned this second Dick is a stunning example of confirmation bias.

I would take this pair of Dicks seriously if I cared about anything they actually are experts in…but fortunately for me they are incompetent on all the stuff I care about.

For evidence of DC’s ad hoc views listen to “Unbelievable? Dec. 16, 2016. Was Hitler Anti-Christian?”

He’s like a young earth creationist trying to prove that Darwin recounted Darwinism on his death bed. It’s quite sad. I think the best way to argue with Dicks like these is just to let them make their arguments…they have to make the conclusions they make because of their beliefs in P1 & P2.

I suppose the same could be said of Christians…but if these Dicks (not Christian dicks, the first Dicks I was talking about) are right…who cares? If these Dicks are right then killing Downs Syndrome infants is moral…if these Dicks are right…then nothing matters…so who cares? Their views are ad hoc for the sake of apathy! Well…it’s hard to take these Dicks too seriously…because let’s face it…they’re dicks. And if Jesus was who he said he was then actually quite a bit matters…really everything matters. That doesn’t make anything true or false, it just makes one serious and the other meaningless.

If you listen to that podcast you’ll find that DC’s whole point in trying to prove Hitler was a Christian (which he utterly fails to do, he barely even attempts to) is that he’s anti Trump. That’s pretty much it. He knows that if he says Hitler = Christian enough some idiots will believe him and then he connects American Christianity (that is nothing like the “Postive Christian” sect DC claims Hitler held to) to Trump and the idiots go “Ahhh! A clue Sherlock!” And somehow that convoluted piece of junk reasoning makes the case against both Trump & Christianity and promotes his real agenda of spreading P1 & P2. This is beyond stupid. This is pure ad hoc emotion.

If you disagree with Trump then argue against Trump. But do it with legal reasons or moral ones. Don’t do it with emotion.

If anything the fact that Evangelicals voted for Trump shows that he’s deeply dissimilar to Hitler because Evangelicals are anti Islam, very Zionist, and anti infanticide. Evangelicals voted for Trump because of all the reasons they think Hitler was evil, in other words they voted for Trump for the same reasons they wouldn’t have voted for Hitler.

In any case Dicks like Carrier are evil. They need to be stood up. Not with fists but with words.

Did Jesus exist?

Yes he did. If you deny this then you must also deny the existence of Alexander the Great, King Leonidas, any of the Caesars…pretty much everything before video. Which makes denying the existence of Jesus not just factually incorrect but also plain stupid. Yeah that’s right: stupid. Richard Carrier, Robert Price, etc are all stupid. Not unintelligent, they clearly have good brains but they have chosen to warp their minds to a point far beyond polite disagreement. There is no civil space for this question, it doesn’t need to be tolerated. It’s proponents need to be tolerated and treated civilly just like holocaust deniers, but also just like holocaust deniers we do not need to be polite to this idea. It needs to be addressed for the sake of the poor people who are duped by it but the idea itself is remarkably idiotic. 

Enjoy:

Proof of no God?

So the poorly educated and angry person I used to argue with has really hit a low. I’m starting to think this person may be mentally disabled or ill. I’m being serious about that. If that’s not an accurate assessment then they at least are choosing to be ignorant, because it’s not possible to believe things thus stupid through normal cognitive processes. Either this person has something wrong with them or they are choosing to recurve themselves.

Latest claim:

“Atheism is settled science – there is no god, there are no gods, there is nothing on that matter to discuss, give all that nonsense a rest, and get down to the real urgent matters of cognitive distress – and the litany is intact, stronger than ever, all defined by the depraved working of our supersystem.”

Science has nothing to say to whether or not there is or is not a god or gods. Any scientist who would make a claim this strong is simply an intellectual joke. This is a deeply idiosyncratic claim, only someone who is  mentally disabled or who chooses to. E evil can claim such a ridiculous thing. How would science disprove God? But measuring him? “Oh we looked and we couldn’t find him so we know he doesn’t exist. In fact we know nothing we don’t know about doesn’t exist.” That sounds stupid because it is. You could be agnostic based on “science” but not atheistic. Atheism is always based in philosophy (or emotion) but never science (in its modern definition).

But this poor soul goes on to betray their atheism by referring to distress. Distress is an emotion, a thing that it is like to be like. In other words they claim something immaterial and ethical right after claiming that God doesn’t exist. If mental states exist (like distress) and if it is wrong for people to be in such a painful mental state then materialism at least is false. Maybe God doesn’t exist but he can’t be logically excluded if you believe in oughts and minds. But this poor soul acts on their emotions only. They don’t reflect, they don’t understand how foolish they are. They could choose to be better but they are deeply arrogant and remarkably unvirtuous. They simply don’t care about truth. They care about how they feel and that’s it. No thought is given to reason or logic. They attend to their emotional need to express whatever feelings they are feeling as indicative of truth. It’s sad and evil. More importantly it’s the exact opposite of the cult of science that they worship at. It is anti fact. It is anti everything except their emotions.

Here’s more:

“Climate catastrophe lies just beyond polite conversation, but it is up on the Top Ten list of that litany, and currently going gangbusters in the reduction of sea ice in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. WordPress should be able to provide a safe haven for the mass of fairly knowledgeable humans to pen climate catastrophe freakouts, but this one harbinged doom is not the only destroyer of the reality of a better and inhabitable social world. The supersystem is infected by common invasions of corruption and irrational violence that constitute the working operations of anti-human social institutions. Economic inequality has many historical and on-going causes, but it too imperils the very hopes of poor and non-privileged people that there is any rational way for them to escape the crushing burdens of udner-employment and debt peonage. The global wars of empire are in a technowar phase of staggering reach and ill effect, killing the poor peoples of the oil- and energy-resource desert oases of thhe condemned Middle East. The prisons and shanty-towns and refugee confinements of the greater world are not minor irritations to the glory of a rich global regime of corporate capitalism, but are its dominant mode of living.”

The truth or falsity of any of these claims is irrelevant because this person has no basis for believing in right and wrong. That claim to be a nihilist. They claim to be a materialist. That means they believe there is no right or wrong. So income inequality (despite the fact that we have less income inequality worldwide than we ever have before) isn’t right or wrong for the nihilist…it just is. That’s irrational. It’s insane to claim there are no morals and then be morally outraged. That’s stupid. It makes no sense at all. Really only Christians should be concerned with climate change. Because only Christians have a clear vision that this planet matters. In fact it matters eternally. Because like ourselves when Jesus returns to rule the world he will resurrect this planet from its shameful state and turn it into our eternal home. And you might think that would mean we can treat it as shitty as we want because God will save it anyway but Paul makes the opposite claim in 1 Corinthians saying that the deeds done in the body are not in vain because of the resurrection! So this foolish person speaks out of both sides of their mouth and in the end only condemns themself. Their moral outrage is the purest form of bull shit.

And here:

“With these and other interconnected sources of social horror part of our rational and emotional bases of knowledge and thought, what goes into the practice of living? Simple denial that there is going to be anything wrong in our own sun-selected lives? Self-maintaining words of endemic happiness and supreme adaptability? The words that others say or type or depict are not necessarily reflective of their interior mental monologues. They could proclaim indifference, or some faithiest and bizarre trust in a “loving” and care-taking deity, all the birds-on-a-wire warbling and pontificating overlaid upon the internal reality of a brain in daily psychic freakout over the evident mounting crises outside the door and computer screen.”

This doesn’t really make sense at all. They seem to be displaying the freak out they are describing. But any reference to psychic, rational, or emotional anything denies their materialistic viewpoint. What they describe is a mental state not a physical one and therefore their world view is false. They destroy themself.

And finally:

“No, “things are not going to be all right.” Neither are these end times, or imminent doom. Humans are built to be heroes, supremely crafty and untrustworthy survival artists, stepping through the muck and mire to keep another dawn coming. This pop-tech western interregnum was fairly strange and mostly antithetical to that basic nature of humanity, but we are encountering a much more threatened social world than any parent or professor or Nobel Laureate or literary pantheonista could ever have forecast. That was not within their powers, but it will be within ours, as we get set for four of the most stupid years any empire has yet endured on its way down to decreptitude.”

Yeah things will be alright. They literally become a liberal prophet of Armageddon in this final paragraph. Maybe this person isn’t mentally ill maybe they just haven’t turned 21 yet. Maybe they don’t realize that 8 years of Obama isn’t the way things have always been. Maybe they are just a product of this time and it’s worship of fake moral outrage and the veneer of scientific credibility. Whatever the case their internal state is weak at best and they need to grow up. We don’t all need to agree on everything but I think everyone should be able to agree that dreck like this is far too common. Somewhere along the line this person should have become educated but instead they wereindoctrinated. It’s just sad. 

Nemesis End: The God of Sorrows

It’s not fun anymore. It’s just sad. And I mean really sad, not pathetic…tragic.

I think this is my last comment to my Nemesis:

“We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” – The prophet Isaiah 

There is hope. But it isn’t a stupid hope. It’s a hope that begins with nihilistic despair.
Psalm 88 is the only lament Psalm (the most numerous genre of Psalms) that ends without hope: you have taken from me friend and neighbor, darkness is my closest friend.
This is why I trust Jesus. He doesn’t lie. The world is shit. Everything is wrong. Nothing is right. The most authentic, the most impossible to disprove verse of the Gospels is the cry of dereliction. Jesus admits he has been abandoned by his father, God has rejected God. Yet he quotes Psalm 22. A Psalm that begins in terrible prophetic lament and ends with victory.
God has literally died as the nihilists used to claim…but he didn’t stay dead. Jesus came back from death. Despair and hope. Hope based in despair.
You can keep mocking the world’s problems with this blog, pretending they don’t bother you, pretending you’ve found meaning in “fun social nihilism” when everyone knows that’s a farce or you can give up and find true hope in the God of sorrow. This is the reason the poor and marginal have always flocked to Jesus: he is not their opiate, he is their smelling salts. Jesus was homeless, Jesus was isolated, persecuted, and unjustly murdered. Jesus was lynched. 
Deny his existence with feeble mythist arguments, it doesn’t matter, the ultimate proof of his power are the poor: the poor belong to him. That’s why he sent Mother Theresa to India. That’s why he called Saint Francis from wealth to poverty. That’s why he came from his father to become one of us.
The other gods and philosophers call us to be strong, but the God who is there calls us to be weak. You are trying to be strong but you aren’t. Embrace your weakness, give up and join true humanity. Don’t waste your life anymore.”
This person is in a lot of pain, they are lost and until they want to be found nobody can help them.

Nemesis part 4

So my nemesis posted this today:

https://mjosefw.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/anti-social-media/

I’m not sure but I think QB hasn’t approved my last several comments. It doesn’t matter anyway since QB won’t respond anymore. It’s clear they read Hitchens or an equally unqualified “philosopher” of religion and treated it as if it were holy scripture. And to be fair most of what I’ve posted on his blog has been mocking nonsense! Beautiful nonsense like this:

Or this:

Anyway if you read the post it’s clearly about me! Yay!

I commented on it with the following (sorry it’s pictures, I lost my original and was too lazy to retranscribe it all):


In case you want to listen to the amazing debate between Gordon Stein and Greg Bahnsen (that I posted at the end there) here is the link: