Christians usually know when an inquirer is on a genuine search for knowledge or just a misotheist who is playing games. The latter may think they do not have to play with the hand they have been dealt, so they try to mark the cards, deal from the bottom of the deck, and pull other foolish tricks with their eternal destiny. It is bad enough to demand proof for the existence of God, but worse when they insist that there is no evidence for him.
That is amazingly arrogant. When such a statement is made, this child is reluctant to spend a great deal of time with that person. Sure, I can make some replies and see if I can spot any sign that the Holy Spirit is working in his or her life. Sometimes they start with bluster, then interact more civilly than before.
One jasper was so supercilious when asked what evidence would convince him, he said to present it and he would decide if it was worthwhile. I could tell that the goalposts were already in his pickup truck, ready to be moved. Also, he was judging other Christians and me as stupid because we could not meet his rigged challenge! I didn’t play. After all, there are times to end the discussion and find better things to do. Jesus did that.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favor of giving evidence when needed. Apologetics is important to help remove stumbling blocks for people coming to faith in Jesus. Certain kinds of evidence are not needed, as evidence for God is all around and they have no excuses. However, evidence must be presented in a presuppositional framework. That is, we presuppose that God exists and the Bible is his Word, and we will not accede to their naturalistic presuppositions.
Most people are indoctrinated into an evolutionary worldview. It’s not just about science, philosophies of life and morality are taken from it. But not consciously for the most part.
We have two articles to consider that are on a similar theme. The first one is about the “no evidence” claim, and it has a different approach we can use to get the attention of a scoffer. I reckon this is best in person with friends or family.
The ‘no evidence for God’ claim, though, is an interesting one. It often works to frame the discussion in such a way that only we have a burden of proof. It allows the unbeliever the comfortable position of the skeptic: they get to poke holes in our case without ever having to make a case for anything themselves. This however sets up a false dilemma: either we can convince them that God exists, or our faith in God isn’t reasonable. But there’s practically always a way to doubt any argument for God (or practically any argument for any philosophically interesting conclusion, for that matter) that’s not obviously wrong to all rational people. Plus, skeptics regularly demand airtight arguments practically anyone would have to accept before they would believe in God (Agnosticism). As such, we almost certainly won’t convince them. But then that supposedly means that our faith in God isn’t reasonable. The game is rigged from the start. Heads, the skeptic wins; tails, we lose.
You can read the entire article at “No evidence for God?” Don’t forget to come back for the next part.
You came back. Groovy! Unbelievers and even some Christians may wonder if the Bible is useful and can be trusted. I did. I was raised in an Untied Methodist (misspelling intentional) home and was allowed to attend a Babdiss school. Those Fundamentalists (I am not using it as a pejorative) insisted on the Bible being the inerrant word of God, so I did some investigation on it and on beliefs. That is, with an attitude toward doctrine-type statements of, “Where did you get that?”
Any question of origins is historical in nature, not entirely subjected to empirical science. The Bible, through its authors, makes some pretty strong statements about itself. It is self-attesting, and a reliable historical document based on eyewitness accounts. Historical matters have been verified, never disproven. Also, there is prophesy that has been fulfilled, sometimes hundreds of years later. Documented.
People today must judge between two contradictory worldviews: the biblical worldview and the evolutionary worldview.
I’m a lawyer, so I think about this like a legal case. Juries have to judge between opposing litigants, like we have to judge between worldviews. Juries do it by weighing the evidence. Let me give an example from a case I worked on.
This is a simple lesson that people can get from Question Evolution Day: Demand the science. Actually, this is something other biblical creationists and I have been saying for a mighty long time, but this is a time to emphasize it.
It is also very helpful to learn how to spot bad logic. The stuff these owlhoots spread is saturated with faulty reasoning, but since the secular science industry seems to work closely with Rusty Swingset and his crew up yonder near Deception Pass at the Darwin Ranch, their negative influence is seen. All sorts of intellectual and scientific shenanigans happen at the Ranch, but they sure do know their propaganda tactics!
Chimpanzees are portrayed as more intelligent than they really are, and assertions about having a common language between humans and apelike ancestors way back in the mists of time are just that: mere assertions. These things were followed by that confirmation bias stuff again. The bad reasoning and question-begging nature of the research involved should draw howls of outrage from scientists who have knowledge and integrity. I lack belief that it will happen, since the storytelling supports the Bearded Buddha.
There are a host of scientific problems with evolution. One egregious difficulty is an untestable proposition that people (and primates) evolved from an unknown common ancestor from an unknown time ago. As one evolutionist said, “When you look at the narrative for hominin [bipedal apes, including modern humans] origins, it’s just a big mess—there’s no consensus whatsoever.”
In addition, the evolutionary origin of the unique ability of human speech and language remains totally unresolved. . .
Undeterred, evolutionists expect to find part of the answer by observing “gestures that wild chimps and bonobos use to communicate,” since they allegedly share a common ancestor with us. But interpreting ape gestures is necessarily subjective. . .
It did not take long before numerous reports about images from the James Webb Space Telescope became plentiful. I simply posted them on social(ist) media. Biblical creationists were pointing out that evidence for the Big Bang (something sought by the JWST folks, NASA, ESA, and others) was not happening. Things were not looking good for finding the invisible friends of materialists, those rascally extraterrestrials, either.
A bone I keep gnawing on is that there is evidence for recent creation in our own solar system. (Feel free to browse Piltdown Superman for posts with links to relevant articles.) Instead of admitting that their worldview is fundamentally flawed, secular scientists conjure up rescuing devices to preserve deep time. Papa Darwin needs it, you know. Closer to home, or way out yonder in the big universe, the evidence continually refutes the concept of billions of years.
Secular cosmology is in disarray, and instances that cosmic evolution supposedly happened “earlier than thought” by secularists keep cropping up. Creationists don’t need excuses or data-tampering because God is indeed the Creator.
“If the evidence is so clear, why don’t scientists face the facts, Cowboy Bob?”
The answer has nothing to do with science, old son. It is a spiritual problem. Mankind has fallen, which happened back in Eden. The natural person is at enmity with God, and our sinful nature interferes with pretty much every area of our lives — which includes the thinking processes. (This is indirectly supported by “9 Signs That You Might Be An Intellectually Dishonest Atheist.”) Christians are to presuppose the truth of the Word of God. Although misotheists and others say this is irrational, they are presuppositionalists themselves! That’s right, they presuppose atheistic naturalism. The light comes in through the Word of God and the working of the Holy Spirit. The reality of spiritual matters is unthinkable to materialists.
I rounded up a passel of links that support our contention that the JWST is providing support for recent creation and not helping the Big Bang. The most recent article is first, then I drop down to some older ones and work forward. You savvy? Good.
13 January 2023: JWST Upsetting Cosmology — The James Webb Space Telescope continues turning up contradictions to consensus views on cosmic evolution
It is that time of year again where people are busy buying presents, playing Christmas music, getting stressed, and being judged for using pagan elements.
Near as I can figure it, there are three sources for accusations of Christmas having a pagan origin or incorporating those elements: atheists, sanctimonious Christians, and pagans themselves. If a pagan had accused me of using elements of their religious activities, I didn’t know it. Normally, it’s the other two groups of tinhorns.
Professing atheists frequently exhibit both ignorance and bigotry when making accusations — which is both annoying and amusing when they do so on an article they refused to read that debunks their claims. Ironic, huh?
Self-righteous Christians also show ignorance, often acting like atheists in their caustic remarks. They, too, refuse to read/watch material that has a proper historical perspective, preferring instead erroneous traditions. Then they show that they have the “right” beliefs by bashing Christians who do celebrate, violating Colossians 2:16-17 and others. Pastor Sourjowels would be pleased.
What we do not experience is scorn from people who have some historical knowledge.
There are many myths about Christmas, such as Joseph and Mary being turned away from a hotel, the Magi showing up at the time of Jesus’ birth, and others. A few minor errors that most folks don’t know about are not reasons to reject celebrating Christmas.
We also give each other gifts to celebrate the ultimate gift of God, the incarnation of God the Son, the Creator, as Jesus. Also, because the real Nicholas was a gift-giver.
Some Christians say that we shouldn’t celebrate because we’re not commanded to. So? God gave us holidays (holy days), and people have instituted holidays and observances as well. Indeed, Hanukkah was not one of the original holidays that God commanded the Jews to keep, but Jesus participated (Christians can do it as well). There are a couple of Black Cat Appreciation days. Governments set up holidays. This child has set up Question Evolution Day on 12 February. Holidays and observances happen.
The early church was arguing about when to celebrate Easter back in the 2nd century, not if it should be observed. Similarly, Christmas was celebrated in secret (because of Roman persecution) at about the same time as Easter, and has also been celebrated ever since. Naysayers don’t have church history in support of their views.
25 December for the birth of Jesus has supporters and detractors, and unfortunately some get dogmatic about it. A popular belief is that this date was established to Christianize a pagan festival. Studying the Roman calendar, Saturnalia was over by the 25th. Another candidate was Sol Invictus for sun god worship, but that was established long after Christians were celebrating Christmas.
If y’all choose to not celebrate, great. But don’t pass judgment on those of us who do. In the same way, those of us who do celebrate should not look down on those who give it a hard pass. Both groups have freedom of Christian liberty. You savvy that, pilgrim?
The article linked below covers much of what I’ve touched on in detail, and some other items as well. The history is enlightening, to say the least.
Every year I get “love letters”—can I call them that? You know, those letters blasting me with the same old claims that “Christmas was pagan.” For some reason, I’m supposed to repent of not believing the pagans when they insist that their “holiday” is the true one. I’m chastised for not giving Christmas back to the pagans and locking myself in my house from the four Advent Sundays to the end of the Twelve Days of Christmas.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing or poking fun at people for not celebrating Christmas, the resurrection, or their own birthdays. But I think it is wise to refute these claims from time to time as a reminder that pagans usually don’t get it right. Polytheistic and pantheistic pagans—including believers in evolution, Roman and Greek mythology, ancestor worship, Wicca, etc.—attack Christianity with fervor.
This article may appear to be one of those “atheists are nasty to me so I will pay them back” things, but if you’ll stay with me on this trail, you’ll see where it leads. (Edited for wording 1 September 2022.)
After all these years dealing with misotheists, I should no longer be amazed at their vitriol and bigotry. It seems to be increasing. (It may be a sign of the Last Days, but I will not delve into eschatology this time.) Many professing atheists (Romans 1:18-23) claim to believe in freedoms of speech, expression, and thought, but they seek out and ridicule Christians for doing those very things.
They frequently try to put us on the defensive by dodging what we discuss, introducing new subjects, ignoring replies, more dodging, and attempting to intimidate. They get furious — furious, I tell you — when we don’t let them manipulate us and play “Gotcha!” games.
If you study on it, you may also notice that Christians and biblical creationists are not “allowed” to argue from our own worldview. Those atheists insist that we engage on their terms and accept atheistic naturalism, but they call it “neutral ground” or some such. Christian, if you agree to “leave the Bible out of it”, you’ve just agreed with the atheist that God’s Word is incorrect when it discusses them and their rebellious condition! There is no neutral ground. You savvy that, Pilgrim?
There have been times where I have read comments such as this one: “My atheism is a side effect of being intelligent, rational, logical, and basing my conclusions on evidence.” However, they show an extreme lack of knowledge of science, evolution, logic, and Christianity. Then they make statements about God, the Bible, Christianity, Christians, biblical creationists, etc. Such remarks are simply prejudicial conjecture, indicating that those making them are not interested in serious discussions.
The one I quoted above has frequently stated that he already knows that the Bible, creation science, and other things presented by Christians are “wrong” and will not read them or watch the videos. This is being informed? No. I think that kind of arrogance is a cover for cowardice.
Indeed, he even reacted to a post and said that I don’t “understand what a theory is in science.” Boskus, the Page owner, humiliated himself yet again because he not only attributed the article to me, but if he had read it, he would have learned that it was written by a scientist. Scientists know what a theory is in science, if I recollect rightly.
Over and over, we get proven right by the atheistic goat rodeo denizens who do not display original thought, and especially their lack of critical thinking. F’rinstance, see how alleged Bible contradictions are shredded. Objections to Christianity and especially biblical creation are contumeliously thrown about by those with Atheism Spectrum Disorder, but for those of us with experience, we read and hear the same old nonsense. Mr. Bentley has a short, humorous article on the responses of atheists that I suggest you read.
My previous article on this weblog was a retooled post from Fakebook that examined alleged logic and morality from certain misotheists. It prompted reactions. One was built on complete dishonesty, including putting words in my mouth. I saw that he was just another angry bigot who was justifying his rebellion against Almighty God, and not worth my time. (I reckon he sent about ten visits here with his link.) If you go there, note that he doesn’t exactly enforce the comments policy for his sycophants.
A second reaction was written by an acolyte of the first writer. His comments on this weblog were the same old boilerplate rhetoric. When I stopped responding and allowing his disingenuous comments, he wrote his own post. I was a mite irked when I gave one reply:
To show the brilliance of The Mighty Atheist™, you begin with an ad hominem, using cowboy as a pejorative. This is followed by a hasty generalization about my knowledge of atheists based on just one article. I’ve got some bad news for you, Sunshine, I’ve been writing about atheists, theology, and other things for somewhere around fifteen years. That means I won’t fall for tricks. So, have fun with your argument from silence and other logical fallacies in your vindictive, petty post. Mayhaps when your frontal lobes develop and you can have a rational discussion, I’ll let you comment on my posts again, mmmkay?
I didn’t bother to read any responses.
There are a couple of things I’ve said on other occasions: The days of “You believe, I don’t, let’s turn on the game and watch it,” are long gone. Also, since evolution is foundational to the religion of atheism, they really get on the prod when fish-to-fool evolution is doubted. Things can be going well between a misotheist and a Christian, but express evidence against evolution and supporting creation (especially the Genesis Flood), and they’re ready to slap leather.
I know this trail is a mite long, but the end is in sight.
The secular science industry is dominated by atheists. Although the adored peer review process is saturated with difficulties and some even want it scrapped, they stay with it. A spell back, someone used a vile word and secularists rode into town and shot up the saloon. It began with a “c”. Yep, someone said “Creator“, and it wasn’t even meant in reference to the real Creator that we will all stand before in Judgment.
I mentioned earlier about a post that was written by a scientist. That atheist discussed earlier was angry because the title was, “Many Scientists Believe Scientific Theories Religiously.” It’s true. While they claim to believe things because of evidence, there is no empirical support for many of those things. Just-So stories (here’s a passel of them for example), inferences, bad science, fraud — sure. We get a prairie-schooner full of that. But nothing helpful.
Also, atheists and evolutionists hate presuppositional apologetics, but they are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves! Christians are to presuppose the truth of the Bible, but atheists and Darwin’s disciples presuppose evolution, deep time, that everything came from nothing, and materialism. There is precious little empirical evidence, and it is dragged down by the stones of all of those assumptions.
A post I saw this morning brought all these things together for me. There is a firefight among materialists about the Webb telescope and the Big Bang. Essentially, “Liar! I never said what you said I said!” Meanwhile, accusations against Eric Lerner were shallow, since he has rejected the Big Bang for decades. (His own belief has no evidence, however.) This link is to a secular article that affirms the “facts” of the Big Bang, but I present it here with a coarse wording warning.
All of this is to say that misotheists and evolutionists fiercely guard their origins myth, and despise freedoms of speech, expression, and thought. It is not about evidence, because they really don’t have any! It is a spiritual problem. God exists, they know it, but suppress the truth. Many hate his followers, like this sidewinder:
Many feral atheists have repented and become Christians. There are several in the biblical creation science organizations. Sin affects all areas of one’s thinking, and with salvation and the entrance of God’s Word comes light.
On occasion, I would write a “Note” on Facebook for fans of my Pages. Since Fakebook took away the Notes and made them very difficult to find, I’m putting a few on my weblogs. This one was originally posted in 2020. It’s been edited.
Those “freethinkers’ marching in lockstep, getting their “facts” from atheopath talking points clearinghouses, seem determined to argue with Christians and creationists about practically everything. Can’t let those st00pid dujmb theist be right, especially when they have corrected us on science, logic, theology, or anything else. Nosiree! Although I should not feed these attention-craving trolls, this is a good opportunity to do a bit of teaching.
Many professing atheists seek their identities in denying the existence of God, which is galactically stupid even on the surface. Study on it a spell. How many a-Easter-Bunny-ists write and sell books, form groups, make videos, have people pay money to join their “reason circle” to combat the Easter Bunny, use anti-Bunny profile icons, and more? It’s because there is no Easter Bunny, but they know God exists and suppress the truth! For some inexplicable reason, ridicule is an acceptable substitute for rational discourse and proves them right. Contradiction and ridicule are not refutation. You savvy that, pilgrim?
It is amazing that so many of Satan’s handmaidens reflexively contradict us, thrusting their atheopathy into the bright spotlight. For example, informed creationists often have to correct evolutionists and professing atheists on their own belief systems and scientific truth. Also, you would think that people who claim to believe in reason, science, and logic would have at least some skill in using those things. Instead, we are subjected to bullying and malarkey. Most are all hat, no cattle.
When caught making errors or lying, some simply double down.
Take a look at this example from an atheopath (whose biggest fan ridicules under a fake name) and pretends to be anonymous. He doesn’t even have the courage to read or view the creationist materials he assumes are wrong or lies (a fallacy of relevance that is called Bulverism):
Scientists know that dark matter exists because they can calculate the amount of mass and it doesn’t account for the amount of gravity.
No, that’s a talking point (an erroneous one at that) based on presuppositions of the Big Bang. It has been Frankensteined over the decades, saw a bit off here, add something there…it has little resemblance to the “theory” of long ago. Biblical creationists reject it for both scientific and theological reasons. A few renegade secular scientists also reject it. (By the way, ever read The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner? I thought he was making a case for creation, but instead, he was spinning a yarn for something even more outrageous than the Big Bang.) For that matter, evidence for the Big Bang is so poor, some scientists say that the universe itself should not exist! No wonder that dark matter, a critical component of the failed Big Bang, cannot be found.
So they know something is out there.
Of course, by limiting other possible explanations and seeking to confirm a bias, evidence can be tortured so much, it will confess to anything. People like this should know that God exists because the evidence is all around them.
They just haven’t yet figured out exactly what it is.
Similar to Darwinian Evolution of the Gaps, wishful thinking and hoping that maybe perhaps possibly scientists think that some day, evidence will be found — that ain’t science, girlfriend, that’s blind faith.
But leave it to creationist knuckleheads to deny it.
We’re “knuckleheads” for denying something that scientists admit has no evidence other than something that is occasionally inferred? Makes perfect sense on your planet, but not in reality. They keep searching, but keep failing to detect dark matter. Here is just one example, which I used as a screenshot in the original.
For those who engage the genetic fallacy and reject material from biblical creationists, here is one example from a secular source. Do your homework, there are more.
In their rabid hatred of God, Christians, and especially biblical creationists, bigots like this are fond of perverting Scripture. It’s who they are and what they do, even when the truth applies to them — and they end up proving God right yet again.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
This article will touch on several areas, some of the things I have thought about for quite a while. So I will present some speculations with what I think is evidential material, run it up the flagpole, and see if anyone salutes it.
I’ll allow that I have some cognitive dissonance happening. I don’t trust humanistic psychology, but getting some kind of treatment for mental illness can be beneficial. However, some problems fade over time. Even medication (although scientists do not know why one works and treatment is often a crapshoot) can be necessary. Talking with a biblical counselor is most likely the best answer.
There are many unhealthy thinking patterns classified as personality disorders, but the groupings and labels are unhelpful since many have traits that overlap. Some of these resemble psychotic symptoms. Also, Autism Spectrum Disorder is a kind of mental illness. Some people have been misdiagnosed as having some other disorder until the patient was reevaluated. These things help indicate that the field is not exactly scientific.
People tend to throw around words to label others, acting as if they were licensed psychotherapists making diagnoses. “You have cognitive dissonance”, “That’s an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect”, “You’re just paranoid”, and others. They probably don’t even know what the words mean other than spending five minutes looking them up on teh interwebs.
Individuals have personality flaws, and will exhibit “symptoms” found in the lists for psychologists. It’s when some have several indications that a diagnosis could be made correctly. By an expert.
This expression seems to be relatively new. Generally speaking, toxic people bring harm to others, especially their mental well-being. Toxic people feed their own egos by rejoicing in (and causing) distress and harm to others. It is a serious problem in interpersonal relationships, especially when realizing that a family member is toxic. In many cases, they cannot be avoided, so the victim needs to learn skills to minimize the damage.
I was recently told about a woman who eventually left her physically-abusive husband, but he was able to turn the woman’s own sister against her! Fortunately, that was straightened out later.
What is frequently discussed is self-esteem. I’ve heard and read Christians who condemn self-esteem, but I reckon they’re on the prod about sinful pride. There is a reasonable amount of healthy self-esteem in people, including Christians. We don’t want people becoming damaged and feeling worthless!
Among the snap judgements that armchair psychologists make is to call someone a narcissist. A person may appear that way if they spend a bit too much time focusing on their appearance, for instance, or make their personal gratification a priority. Traits here and there do not necessarily make someone a narcissist.
Narcissists can be oh so charming, but will not build you up. They tend to tear you down, and even try to leverage your accomplishments for their benefit. Unfortunately, they seek out certain kinds of people to be their victims. Narcissists are not likely to be planning. Rather, it is a skill that comes naturally.
Sometimes intelligent people can be seen as narcissistic, but that may not be the case. I cannot find a script, but I’ll do this from memory: In an episode of Barney Miller, the genius Arthur Dietrich was making a rather heady remark. Nick Yemana, who had no idea of what Arthur was saying, replied, “I don’t think that’s necessarily true!” Instead of belittling Yemana, Dietrich said, “But it’s possible.” Yemana agreed thoughtfully, “It’s possible.” Great scene! Arthur was very intelligent, but didn’t lord it over others.
Check online and you’ll find many sites and articles dealing with narcissists in your life. People diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are comparatively rare, but that can be skewed because they may think there’s nothing wrong with them, so why seek treatment?
Consider this: People with inflated pride are more difficult to reach with the gospel of Jesus Christ because they see no reason to repent, and humbling themselves is unthinkable.
Whether someone has been diagnosed with NPD or not, if narcissistic traits are observed, the recipient of their manipulations should be on guard. There are various defensive methods to counteract it. Again, being aware of what’s going on is extremely helpful in and of itself. There are videos (a few are linked below) and articles available online. Unfortunately, spouses, children, and other family members may not admit that the other person has a problem.
These emotional abuses can also become physical. Yes, while it may seem like a harmless aberration, a narcissist can be physically as well as mentally dangerous.
This word has an interesting history. It came from a 1938 stage play, Gas Light, then the Gaslight movie in 1940 (at the moment, available for free on YouTube). The 1944 movie featuring Charles Boyer, Igrid Bergman, and Joseph Cotton is the version most people know. The evil husband wanted his wife’s riches, and when he searched in the attic, he turned on the gas light up there and it dimmed elsewhere in the house. He was trying to drive her insane, and one of his tricks was to tell her that no, the light never dimmed. It’s a tense psychological drama and I recommend it (having only seen the 1944 version). Also, it’s distressing to see what he put her through, even to doubt her own sanity.
There are key traits and phrases that gaslighters have, but a couple here and there do not mean someone is a narcissist or gaslighting. You savvy that, pilgrim?
Unlike the story, to gaslight someone does not have an end goal in sight, but is a wicked method of manipulation. It is ongoing. Narcissists seek gratification, and gaslighting is one method. The gaslighter tells the victim what to think, they have no right to their feelings, plays the victim, and may even claim that they know you better than you know yourself.
Take note that the gaslighter will use other people against his or her targets. Victims are often belittled in front of their friends and family, and the accumulation can lead to the recipient having self-doubt, even to the point of questioning their perception of reality.
One note here is that gaslighting is a tactic of narcissists, but there are other toxic people that use it.
Atheism and Mental Illness
Yeah, I know, them’s fightin’ words. Well, deal with it because I’m going to lay out my controversial speculations.
Atheists exhibit many of the characteristics of narcissists and sociopaths. (See “It All Adds Up: Many Atheists are Nuts,” where I discuss an article on narcissistic sociopaths.) You will frequently see, especially on social(ist) media, that atheists pretend to be smarter than “theists.” They also dehumanize Christians and creationists, which makes it easier to negate our views; some cannot say anything good about, or in agreement with, a Christian!
At other times, atheopaths will act like we’re all amigos on a first-name basis. I’ve been called by my first name, the atheist pretends to be patient and friendly — and told what I think and believe! (Take a look at “Further Adventures in Atheo-Fascism” for a more detailed analysis on how they dodge things they don’t like.) Internet atheists can be the most vile and underhanded.
Gaslighting is obviously most effective in personal relationships, but some attempt to do this online. Atheists ridicule, mock, demonize, and recruit others to join in. This can be used to destroy the Christian’s confidence, and even cause him or her to doubt their memory and thinking — perhaps even to doubt their faith.
When pointing out on Fakebook that an atheopath used a logical fallacy, the response is a laughing emoji.
Catch them in a lie, same response.
Correct a misotheist about their own evolutionary mythology, same response.
Keep one on topic, same response.
Require one to keep to the standards they demand of us and back up their claims…you guessed it.
Do these things sound like characteristics of healthy minds? That’ll be the day! Atheists are exceptionally negative people, and what is deep inside comes out when being keyboard warriors in their safe spaces. Narcissists and sociopaths get furious — furious, I tell you! — when their manipulations fail. If you want to torment online misotheist troll, deny them the attention they crave.
Early on at this WordPress thing (it will never be the home of The Question Evolution Project), I was trolled by a site run by atheopaths. Personal attacks, ridicule, avoiding the content, the usual nonsense. When I blocked that site from commenting here, everything ceased. If they talk about the content here, I’m not aware of it.
I’ll allow it’s mighty difficult to refrain from getting wrapped up into equivalent retaliation, but Christians are not called to slap leather with every internet tinhorn, no matter how wicked and manipulative.
The Spiritual Aspect
When encountering knowledgeable Christians and creationists, Christophobes become even more obstreperous than usual. Why is that?
Non-Christians are the property of Satan. I believe atheists and occultists are closer to him than most people. We do know from Scripture that unbelievers hate Christ in us, and he told us they would hate us. But the one that is in us is greater than the one in the world (1 John 4:4). The spirit controlling them can see the Spirit that is in us.
Atheists are angry, and their fundamentally-flawed worldview is bleak and hopeless. The universe began by chance, life originated by chance from minerals (your mother was a rock and your father was rain), evolution happened through time, chance, random processes, mutations, natural selection — and when you die, you’re worm food. No Judgement, no rewards, no punishment. Yes, very bleak.
Why waste their time tormenting Christians and creationists? I doesn’t make sense to spend so much time seeking their identities and railing against the God they pretend doesn’t exist. But their father Satan requires it. Atheopaths are full of pride as well as wickedness, and it is extremely difficult to get narcissists to realize that they are sinners in need of humility and repentance. We need to pray, share the gospel, be firm but avoid being contentious. Their conversion is not up to us and our golden words (1 Cor. 2:1-2), that is the work of the Holy Spirit. We are to be faithful. And we know what — and who — is real.
Video Links of Interest
These come from secular perspectives, and most have something to sell. A couple are from people who claim to be actual licensed therapists, some are from people who have lived through their experiences. I embedded one below. They provide interesting and probably useful information, but I cannot endorse everything they say.
This child is often late to the party when it comes to reviewing books, movies, and videos. In this case, A Matter of Faith is a movie from October 2014. God’s Not Dead, which I have not seen, was released in March of that year. I watched this one on 30 April 2022.
Irrelevant, but a fun surprise for me is that it was filmed in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I know the area, having lived near there for several years.
Christian movies are like getting grub from the chuckwagon: depends on who is doing the cooking. The genre has a reputation for Pollyanna-style material and bad acting, and some of that is deserved. For example, the A Thief in the Night films that began in 1972 had a good message about the end times, but acting and production were often poor. If I recollect rightly, the last two were improvements over the first ones.
To be fair, the movie industry is known for being hostile to presenting Christians in a positive light, so enthusiastic Christians filmmakers work with low budgets and whomever they can get to work in front of and behind the cameras. Many are using actors who make no pretense at Christianity, but still do their roles in a professional manner.
Things are changing. While many Christian movies suffer from weak writing, it is incorrect to assume that if it’s faith-based, it’s going to be bad. Can’t be using the genetic fallacy and rejecting the entire genre, we have to judge them on their own merits.
Here’s what happened that brought A Matter of Faith to my attention. YouTube recommends videos, so I looked. The entire movie is available there on a channel supposedly owned by the Christiano brothers of Five & Two Pictures who made it. It can be seen on the cutely-named Freevee (formerly IMDB TV), which is owned by Amazon (an Amazon account is required to use it, but not the overpriced Prime). It is also on Pluto and Tubi. Note that selections change, so it may not be on any of those tomorrow.
I went to IMDB and saw that it had a user review score of 3.7 out of 10. Atheists were out in force to vote the movie down. It’s who they are and what they do. Some were saying “worst movie ever made”, and one hatetheist equated it with ISIS propaganda (hyperbole much?), plus other extremely negative claims against Christianity — especially creation science.
After all, they are compelled to protect their fundamentally-flawed origins mythology because it is foundational to atheism. Many of the reviews did not show any knowledge of the movie beyond having watched the trailer, but yee haw boy howdy, they sure did use the word propaganda quite a bit.
One sidewinder said it had the “same merit as a Jonestown Koolaid commercial” and “I think the purpose of making this terrible movie was to try to enlist new members to a rapidly dwindling cult using hollow logic and citing mythical situations as “proof” to support their weak indoctrination attempt.” I could triple the length of this article by examining the false claims and blatant hypocrisy of many reviews, but we need to move on.
Rachel Whitaker was raised in a Christian home and she is going off to college. Her biology class is taught by Professor Kaman (Harry Anderson of Night Court fame), who has an agenda. He promises that if students attend the classes, they are guaranteed a passing grade. That’s a mite suspicious.
During her first few weeks, Rachel is too busy for church or reading her Bible. Professor Kaman, being the caiman that he is, makes bold evolutionary pronouncements with “evidence” that is strictly conjecture, and Rachel is accepting seeds of doubt.
Her father, Steven Whitaker, is upset that Kaman teaches evolution. (Where has he been? The secular science industry and academia are saturated with people who have a worldview based on atheistic naturalism for many years.) Steve visits the professor to respectfully complain about the evolution-only curriculum. Since the college needs a topic for an upcoming debate series, the professor cajoles Steve into debating him.
One trick is saying, “Evolution versus creationism“, and when -ism is used, it has a negative connotation for many people. That was the title of the debate. However (and this puts burrs under the saddles of fundamentalist evolutionists), both creationism and evolutionism can both be used. Indeed, many creationists have no problem with the word creationism.
A professor with training in evolutionism and a passel of experience in public speaking will debate an inexperienced parent of a student. Seems legit. Actually, biblical creation scientists have a difficult time in getting their secular counterparts to debate. Their challenges are declined or ignored most of the time. If Kaman wanted a hot topic for debate, he could have found several qualified creationists who would oblige.
Please pay attention. Although the professor is an atheist and evolutionist, he say, “I teach what my textbooks tells me to teach,” then praises evolutionary scientists. However, parents who take solace in the fact that there are Christian teachers in the public school system are deceiving themself. The reason is that, like Kaman implies, the curriculum given by the state takes priority.
Another student named Evan met Rachel and said that he had taken Kaman’s biology course. He pointed out that Kaman has an agenda and tried to get her thinking.
Rachel’s father wants to get is message out to Rachel and other students. She is appalled — appalled, I tell you — that her father is going to do the debate. Professor Kaman won’t change his beliefs. Also, it will “ruin me on campus!” Apparently nobody considered the possibility that if Steve pulled out, he would be labeled a coward and things would be worse for her.
A glaring error in the movie is that it was claimed that Kaman teaches that we evolved from apes. According to evolutionary beliefs, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. (The fact that our putative ancestors sure did look like apes apparently has no bearing on the situation.) The “evolved from apes” thing is something creationists should avoid.
Another weak point in the movie is something that should be discussed. Too many Christians and creationists attempt to defend our views with “memes” and clever sayings that would fit on bumper stickers, but are woefully unprepared in witnessing to atheists and evolutionists. These folks get slapped down by opponents who have learned their talking points and boilerplate rhetoric. Rachel’s father knew what he believed, but not why, and was unable to defend his position in the debate.
Kaman (if he had a first name other than Professor, I missed it) used rhetorical tricks including assertions, appeal to emotion, false definitions (including the common atheistic definition of faith), straw man, and more. He also used the category error of demanding scientific proof of God. While some may claim that the movie makers were creating a straw many with the way Kaman presented his arguments, other creationists and I have seen such things many times.
In addition, there are indeed professors who are openly hostile to Christianity and especially to creation. This Kaman jasper is a representation of many reports that drop down over the transom.
I left out details that would spoil the movie for y’all, but there were a couple of surprises. One had the professor giving what was said in the debate some thought afterward. There is no “everybody gets saved, let’s have a group hug” ending, but there were some unexpected events well as a couple of things that could be predicted by viewers.
A Matter of Faith was recommended by Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, and others. It has some flaws beyond what I have said, but my agenda is to encourage people who watch it and keep in mind some of the things I have said. Ask yourselves and each other questions. F’rinstance, how would layman Steve have fared against Kaman if he had prepared from the numerous materials available online provided by creationists? How about if he knew and used a presuppositional approach?
To make the movie more realistic, they could have done a full, formal debate. (It would also have been quite a bit longer.) I mentioned earlier that Rachel told her father that he would not change Kaufman’s views. That almost never happens in a debate, although it may happen later. Good debates are for each side to present their viewpoints, and to see if they can withstand scrutiny. If you can spare 2-1/2 hours, I highly recommend the “Does God Exist?” debate between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein.
Again, I recommend that Christians and biblical creationists see A Matter of Faith. They can spot some flaws, and learn about doing apologetics. Also pay attention and notice that evolutionists live by faith themselves. A link to the video was posted here, but I had to remove it because the video is no longer available to the public.
There are several aspects to Question Evolution Day that many people can support, such as biblical creationists and even professing atheists or agnostics who believe in freedoms of speech, expression, academic, and thought. Fundamentalist evolutionists and atheists find it execrable. They attempt to silence this day as well as creationists themselves through ridicule, misrepresentation, outright lies, and more. I thought an important part of rational and scientific inquiry is to allow the examination of contrary evidence, but I’m just a nobody. It is easy to think that those who claim to believe in freedom of speech only support it if the material supports the consensus.
Here’s an area that I must confess to having inconsistency. There have been several misotheists and anti-creationists who want to slap leather with me over the years, and several times I have pledged to stop featuring their comments and such as examples of bad logic and bigotry. I was giving them the attention they seem to crave. Then they give me something else that needs to be used. C’est la guerre.
The above image was posted on Fakebook and these misotheists did the usual: share for the purpose of mockery. First, I want to point out that the owner of that Page and his few fans complain when creationists point out that Charles Darwin was a blatant racist, they falsely claim that we are engaging in ad hominem attacks. Then they hypocritically use their own. Frequently.
By the way, notice the “ha ha” emoji. Atheists love those, even when they’ve been caught lying or given irrefutable evidence for something. No intelligent response, just a childish retort.
The two sentences in the comment on the “share” are chock full o’ fallacies, so let’s give them a look-see.
As I said, they usead hominems frequently. This one has “idiots”, “moronic”, and “clowns”. Some people defend the use of insults and say that are not ad hominems when not used in the course of an argument, but I disagree. It is still to the man and is a way to dismiss what another person or group has to say.
For that matter, an insult can also be a form of poisoning the well to discredit what the other says before any statement is made. If someone states, “No, that’s not an ad hominem, I simply insulted you”, it should not be allowed to stand. It does nothing to advance an argument or position, and is harmful.
Note the viperine conflation of evolution with science, which is common among anti-creationists. This is frequently expanded so that, if we reject atoms-to-atheist evolution, we reject science. Not hardly!
If you study on it a mite, you’ll see that their attitude is anti-science. You betcha, since those who
One need not be a creationist or Intelligent Design proponent to have doubts about evolution. It is in no wise “settled science” or “proven”, since science can’t prove anything, and a true spirit of science it so seek knowledge (which includes adjusting or even rejecting bad theories), not protecting the prevailing paradigm.
Dissent from Darwin has been signed by over 1,200 scientists (and MDs who are also professors of medicine). As discussed at Piltdown Superman, this is essentially blaspheming Darwin and, therefore, hazardous to their careers. If there were more professional, academic, and other freedoms, there would undoubtedly be more signers.
I am once again reminding people that there are many credentialed scientists in the creation community that have published in refereed journals in their own fields. Of course, evidence refuting evolution and supporting creation is not allowed in the secular science industry. It makes Darwin frown.
Implicit in the line, “As if a bunch of Creationist clowns are going to cause science to abandon evolutionary theory”, is an appeal to motive fallacy. Since that Admin uses the genetic fallacy as an excuse to avoid reading creationist material, he doesn’t know what Question Evolution Day is about in the first place.
When I started QED, I never said that it would cause the secular science industry to abandon one of their foundations. (Indeed, glance through this collection of Darwin Day images and notice the religious fervor. Somehow, a couple of QED images made it into the mix.) I am a nobody. Fact. I wasn’t being facetious before. And I know I don’t have much influence or power. This is a movement by and for the people who actually care about getting out the truth and prompting people to think for themselves instead of floating down the stream of “consensus science”.
This may put some people off, but mayhaps some of my history will be useful.
Creation Ministries International had a Question Evolution! campaign that included several videos and questions that evolutionists cannot answer. I made a comment that there should be a Question Evolution Day. Didn’t happen, so, being a cowboy at heart, I took the initiative and started the observance. Not much happened.
I asked for other people to participate, and had a boost a few times from Creation Today. Ian Juby promoted QED on Genesis Week a couple of times. Many other people wrote weblog articles (Duane Caldwell has done several at Rational Faith), and people on social(ist) media had their own material as well as sharing hash-tagged #questionevolutionday posts.
Writing that stuff makes me uncomfortable because I have long said (and pray to remind myself) to seek glory to God, not glory to Bob.
Even so, one point to QED is that a passel of us common folk can get together and spread the world. We can hope and pray that people will realize that they are not getting all the facts from atheistic materialists. They may question evolution and realize that the God of the Bible is the Creator — that means he makes the rules and we should find out what he has to say.
As for angry atheists…they can’t hurt us. Sure, ridicule and say all sorts of evil things, it’s who they are and what they do. But they can’t stop the truth, and people don’t need to spend much time on hard-hearted trolls, you savvy?
I hope all y’all will get involved in Question Evolution Day, our protest against Darwin-mandated science philosophies can be heard!
Misotheists try to prove their intellectual superiority to us st00pid dujmb theists by using risible logic, which includes invalid comparisons.
“We don’t believe in God in the same way we don’t believe in Santa Claus”, or “We don’t hate Jesus, nor do we hate Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc.” Let’s give a look-see on why such remarks are ridiculous. Instead of going at this as a formal logic lesson, this article will take the reader along a different trail.
At first glance, this may remind people of an argument from silence, and I’ll allow that there are superficial similarities. (A quick example of an argument from silence is that in the comments area of a post, I responded to the request to mention a movie that needed its ending explained. I asked for The Quiet Earth. No responses. To assume that nobody can answer would be fallacious.) What follows can be more properly considered an argument from conspicuous absence.
There really was a Saint Nicholas of Myra in the 4th century, and he was a generous, godly man. Legends and modern mythology have very little to do with the real person. It is highly unlikely to find a sane adult who actually believes in the fat guy at the North Pole who has elves working for him, flies around the world pulled by reindeer on Christmas Eve, and defies physics. Ain’t happening, Hoss.
There are other things that won’t be found:
Science supporting his existence, including physics, archaeology, biology, paleontology, and more.
Gatherings of people who sing his praises, offer worship, and give exegetical teachings from the Book of Santa.
Prophecies that have been fulfilled, and others waiting to be fulfilled, from that same book.
Testimonies of people who have experienced miracles or had their lives changed by Santa.
Folks coming to the door or talking in the park, imploring people to come to salvation through the Claus Clause.
Disaster relief efforts spearheaded by organizations like Santa’s Purse.
Schools, hospitals, and so forth being built by believers in the modern version of Santa Claus.
For people who claim that they take Jesus as seriously as they do Sinter Klaas, they sure do spend a passel of time hating God, but no effort to hate Santa. For that matter, many professing atheists seek their personal value and identities railing against someone they claim doesn’t exist! However, they do know that God exists (Romans 1:18-23). They need to repent. It would be great if they did it at Christmas time.