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:

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:”

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 (
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.

The Resistance 

I haven’t been blogging here much recently because the tiresome and anti intellectual atheist arguments I was engaging with were taking up too much time. I realized I was essentially trying to educate fundamentalists who didn’t want to learn…I am still working on an extended response to one atheists’ very poor attempt at debunking the Resurrection of Jesus and even his existence but the argument I’m crafting is different and essentially just logic based so it’s taking a lot longer than I anticipated. 

In any case I think I’m gonna to make this blog much more personal. Essentially just top tens, poetry, film reviews, and creative writing. 

I’ve joined a new blog

and this is where I’m going to post intellectual, political, and philosophical stuff. So if you want to argue with me head over there!

Gosnell coverup continues

That’s an old article but it’s subject couldn’t be more relevant. Because it’s proof that the Washington Post, NYT, & any media that is trying to hide the Gosnell story are fake news. The people responsible for this disaster of journalistic integrity would claim that children should be protected when they can be used to discredit the Roman Catholic Church but that they are willing to pay any price to protect the murder of millions of infants. 

The NYT has lied about the sales of the book Gosnell. Eric Metaxas pointed out on his podcast, while interviewing the authors of that book for the second time, that the Times will claim that their bestseller list isn’t a report as much as it is an editorial but that this makes no sense because they actually point to new and noteworthy books that don’t make the list!

There are good sources for true news available for free. It may be time to turn off your TV and start subscribing to some podcasts. There are at least 3 sources you can point people to that will help spread true news about Gosnell:

1. The Federalist Podcast & Blog, there is an interview with the couple who made the film on the podcast from last week and the blog has several articles about this

2. The Eric Metaxas show has at least two interviews with the couple so far, I’m pretty sure he will have them on again sooner rather than later

3. The Bill O’Reilly interview with this couple that basically rocketed the book to an instant bestseller, as well as their coverage since they are the only mainstream media that is covering this

It’s time to turn the tide. The media have declared their allegiance to evil. You need to declare your allegiance to goodness and truth. Metaxas said that this book could be the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of the 21st century because like that book it opened eyes and closed hearts against slavery. The rampant infanticide taking place in the west is the civil rights issue of our time, this may be the key that unlocks the door to freedom for millions. Spread this story.

Jesus clearly existed 

Earliest non biblical written source (which contains non written sources) attesting to the basic facts of Jesus’ life and death.

The Creed Paul recites in 1 Corinthians 15

“Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.”

Significance of this short Creed:

1. Composed at the very latest 2 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, most likely within several months of the events it recounts 

2. Jesus is identified as the Messiah of Israel 

3. Jesus died, which means a) he lived prior to dying b) therefore he existed 

4. His death was an atoning sacrifice and understood as being prophesied about in the Tanakh 

5. He was buried, because he died 

6. And 3 days later he came back to life which is also understood as fully in accord with the prophecy in the Tanakh

7. Peter saw him alive again (2 non biblical sources)

8. The other 12 disciples also saw him alive again (13 non biblical sources)

9. Then more than 500 others saw Jesus alive again (513+ sources) and many are still alive so these facts can be verified 

10. The brother of Jesus, James, also saw him alive again (514+ sources)

Jesus clearly existed. This is more than enough to establish that fact.

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.

Is David Harbour going to Punch a Princeton professor?

I sure hope so because Peter Singer is an evil man. He was the philosopher who made it impossible to ignore that what we were calling Abortion was actually infanticide. He believes rats are worth more than my friend who has Downs Syndrome and every single student I work with (all have special needs). 

So where is the outrage? Where is the goddamn outrage over Margaret Sanger? She was a Nazi too. I mean the Nazis were eugenicists right? Well Sanger believed that #blacklivesdontmatter and that infanticide was a great way to get rid of inferior humans. So is Harbour going to dig up her bones and punch her or is he going to remain an idiot and a coward for going along with the evil that Hollywood supports? Is he going to punch Planned Non parenthood?

What about Bryan Singer? Is Harbour going to punch him in the face? Making Apt Pupil doesn’t get Singer off the hook for being a Nazi. Nazi’s are fascists right? Don’t fascists threaten people when they don’t get what they want? Well BSinger has been involved in the raping of boys trying to make it in Hollywood for decades. So where is the $&@%ing GOD DAMN outrage over this Nazi? A man who treats young men like tissue paper that he can use and then discard if they disobey him. A man who hides his deviant evil sexual abuse behind the PC veil of homosexuality.

Is Harbour going to punch the countries that Trump banned from immigrating into the US? I mean the Nazis infamously had it out for the Jews right? Well the banned countries have an immigration ban of their own: Jews. So uh why aren’t we treating these countries like apartheid South Africa? Where is the outrage for this actual evil? Harbour is gonna have some pretty bloody knuckles before he gets anywhere close to the president…unless of course he’s a coward, an idiot, and a hypocrite who hides behind Hollywood…I’m willing to bet he’s all of these things.

Where is the real outrage over really outrageous things? In Hollywood there is none. Only hypocrisy. I pray that Harbour isn’t such a scum bag that those beautiful children in Stranger Things aren’t being subjected to the same kind of evil that generations of child actors have experienced. But sadly his total lack of moral character actually indicates that those kids are in danger. Character and belief are deeply connected and Harbour believes it is virtuous to bluster and yell in a room full people who have covered up for “Nazis” their entire careers about how he is going to punch Nazis. “This is how freedom dies: to thunderous applause.” Those children are being brainwashed by morons.

If I ever meet David Harbour I will not punch him for harboring Nazis. I will ask him to explain himself. Repeatedly and annoyingly. With the intent of provoking him to anger so that we all get to see this coward for what he is: an action less actor. We must be civil but we MUST not be polite about evil. The Nazis hid behind politeness. Evil always butchers true civility by manipulating the kind naive intentions of others. We must use words (real words, not bluster) to fight evil. There may be dark times ahead where the forces of good must raise a gun instead of a pen or microphone again but that time has not yet come in the United States. We must listen to MLK jr and practice radical forgiveness and aggressive non violent resistance against all this nonsense.

Celebrities want to talk big while their careers are built upon the skulls of babies and the lives of the molested. This is evil. This is truly outrageous!

And the truth is that there is plenty of outrage over this lunacy and it comes from right here:

This is where God’s outrage is most clear because this is where his love is most clear and the opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is apathy. Hate and love are the same attitude in a perfect soul because you can only hate something if you first love it. Only valuable things are worthy to be hated! I hate David Harbour. I want to fight his brand of bullshit wherever I find it. But I won’t fight it with the stupidity that he wants to fight with. I want to offer him and all the other “Nazi” sympathizers forgiveness. And promise them that if I ever have the chance to annoy them in person I certainly will. I forgive them, I remove my hate, but I do not remove their accountability.

I resist their “intimate truths” with actual truths. I resist their “alternative facts” with facts. I resist their “false bravado” with the humble confidence of Horton: a person’s a person no matter how small. I don’t care how many women march for infanticide it’s still infanticide.

The world has always been crazy, the left is just showing us their true face right now. But it matters not, amidst all this craziness there is a Harbor we can find protection in:

“Out of the night that covers me black as the pit from pole to pole, I thank the God of the tree for my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeoning of providence  my head is bloody and bowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears looms but the Horror of the shade and yet the menace of the years finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate how charged with punishments the scroll Yeshua is master of my fate and the Messiah of my soul.”

The difference between Rational and irrational can be obvious 

Compare this:

To this:

The difference between good and evil isn’t always “moral” sometimes it’s just reason vs non reason. Judd basically said nothing, she blustered a bunch of “phobias” and nonsense. This isn’t a movement it’s just bullshit. The March for life has been going on since Roe V Wade. It’s coverage is as scanty as Gaga’s clothes will be during the SBowl halftime show. 

But The March for Life is part of a movement that actually is grass roots and is sustained over decades without support by any US power centers (the Ivy League schools and either political party). It is populated by all political, religious, demographic, philosophical, etc. It is a marvel.
The coverage should have been marveling at the fact that the March for life outdid the women’s March by almost 200,000. A cause that is vilified as mysogny at the highest levels of cultural power within the west was supported by over half a million people, most of them women…

Is the world good or evil? Well it seems like we get to choose, sadly we often choose badly. Sadly we often listen to demons who say orgasms are more important than infants. Demons that whisper to us that we are only animals, we aren’t free, we aren’t responsible so we should just do whatever we feel. The women’s march was a choice for evil, a choice for feelings over human life. The March for life was a choice for goodness. 

We could see the end of RvW in the next few years, some of it depends on the President but most of it depends on our legislatures which means that it also depends on us. Tell your representatives what you want, tell them you think irresponsible sex isn’t worth the price of millions of infants’ lives. It’s time to push, to disobey, to persuade, to forgive and offer forgiveness, to adopt, to suffer for the lives of the yet to be born. It’s always been time to pray and now it seems like God may be turning the tide against this evil in our midst.