Atheists, Narcissism, and Gaslighting

Outdoor gaslight, Pixabay, Avi Agarwal

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.

The Dubious Nature of Psychology

Last I knew, there were over two hundred schools of psychology. Some in the “hard sciences” look askance on psychology and other social sciences, as they have few characteristics necessary in those sciences. Definitions of, and treatments for, mental illnesses are constantly changing and resemble guesswork. Social sciences are also rooted in Darwinism and atheistic naturalism.

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.

Armchair Psychologists

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.

They should keep up with the news, as the Dunning-Krueger Effect was discovered to be nonsense.

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.

Toxic People

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!

Narcissism

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.

Gaslighting

1944 Gaslight movie poster (public domain)

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.

There are several ways in which atheists display mental illnesses. I have used the word atheopath, coined by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, to describe the irrational behavior exhibited by professing atheists. (I say professing because they know God exists, Romans 1:18-23.) In addition, there is a strong correlation between atheism and autism.

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.

Used under US Fair Use statutes for educational purposes.
The difficult-to-read part in red in that image posted by another Admin, but the image is small here: “Because our uninformed opinions, regurgitations and prejudicial conjectures are universally admissible as evidence and our glib offhand denials are incontestable refutations of anything and everything we personally don’t like or understand.”
  • 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.

A Matter of Faith — Movie Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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.

Resistance to Question Evolution Day

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.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.

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 use ad 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.

Interestingly, while I was writing this, another Admin at The Question Evolution Project re-posted something I wrote a spell back about how creationists embrace science. That same Page owner under discussion here called me a liar in his comments. Because atheism.

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.

In addition, I sought out interviews on radio and podcasts (here is one of my favorites; a skilled interviewer brings out good responses from the subject). A few times I got my name “in print”, such as The Christian Post and The Washington Post (via Religion News Service.) Like I said, I was being a cowboy. Being a nobody, however, hindered getting doors opened.

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!

The convoy starts here. (Made at PhotoFunia.)

Jesus and Santa-ism

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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.

Santa Claus from the Victorian era from Free VINTAGE Illustrations
Notice how this is very different from modern portrayals

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.

The Religion of Atheism has a Chaplain at Harvard

The only reasons I can think of for denying that atheism is a religion are ignorance and dishonesty. It has been defined as a religion by courts, definition, and the actions of professing atheists. They demanded their own chaplains for the military, and Harvard hired Satan himself — oh, wait, that is a different story. Harvard hired an atheist as chaplain.

One of several schools that was founded on Christian principles but jumped the fence into apostasy, Harvard hired this “chaplain” pretends to be “good without God” and claims to be able to provide spiritual guidance to everyone. That’ll be the day! It has been clearly demonstrated that professing atheists are contumelious toward Christians, especially biblical creationists. They define “good” in a postmodern, relativistic way that fits the culture of the moment; whoever betrayed Jews to the Nazis was doing a good thing by Nazi standards.

God calls people like this fools, and anyone going to an atheist “chaplain” is asking for spiritual disaster. Indeed, there are marked similarities between atheism and the LaVey brand of Satanism. Atheism is irrational, lacking the necessary preconditions of human experience. It also has no consistent moral foundation, as is painfully obvious.

Don’t be disunderstanding me here. Yes, there are atheists who have high moral standards, and may even have better conduct than some “Christians”. But as with science, logic, consciousness, love, goodness, and other things, they cannot give a coherent justification for morality. They believe everything came from nothing, yet mock the biblical Christian worldview, which is the only consistent and rational expression for human experience.

Goodness is not relative. Atheists, like other unbelievers, need to humble themselves and repent, making Jesus Christ the Lord of their lives.

The Evolutionist Noble Victim

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It happens at The Question Evolution Project and other places on teh interwebs where professing atheists and evolutionists want to correct Christians and creationists of our “wrong” views. Many of us have encountered some tinhorn who is essentially communicating, “I tried so hard to talk sense to them, but my efforts are scorned. Oh, martyr me!” However, what they put in comments and the story they tell their friends are usually very different.

The Genius and the Crowd / Yeghishe Tadevosyan, 1909

Everyone has a worldview, even if they haven’t done a systematic study and written a thesis about it. Evolution is a foundational aspect of the religion of atheism, and I have seen where seen where atheists may be having discussions with Christians, but when the Christian expresses doubt about evolution, the atheist is ready to slap leather and the civility was forced; one of the atheist’s main foundations was threatened.

Worldviews have presuppositions (things believed to be true without empirical proof), and evolutionists presuppose atheistic naturalism. One assumption is that evolution doubters are Fundamentalist Christians (although their definition of “Fundamentalist” is a vague pejorative), and that we are uneducated. When it is pointed out that there are people with advanced degrees who not only reject atoms-to-atheist evolution, the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is invoked, because no true scientist would even think of questioning evolution. Creationist scientist are not real scientists. Because atheism.

I can’t figure out how to make text appear to the left of an image on WordPress.

There is a serious problem with epistemology. and many of Darwin’s cheerleaders are shocked — shocked, I tell you — when creationists they come across know more about evolution than they do. Evolution defenders often use outdated and discredited information in their attempts to correct or refute us, but display massive ignorance of current evolutionary thinking (or even basic science itself). We are subjected to sanitized Darwinism without faults, errors, contradictions, and controversy among secular scientists. No, evolution is not a “proven fact”,

Instead of letting Christians and creationists have freedom of expression of our views (or even to have our beliefs in the first place), a typical village atheist is compelled to attack us. There are many screenshots I could add here, but that would be excessive.

I’ve got some bad news for you, Sunshine: disagreement is not refutation, and dehumanizing us does not make you right. Snarking at people who post or share creation science material instead of presenting cogent objections to the writers is absurd. Ignoring material about dishonesty in evolutionary propaganda (here is one example) is disingenuous. People who mock and ridicule out of hatred and bigotry don’t deserve much time. You savvy?

Also, engaging in groupthink to win approval from the tribe is not only the suppression of thought, but a losing proposition.

Trolling is common, and some atheists make a pretense at an intellectual approach, using various forms of philosophy. These are invariably red herrings that avoid the subject at hand. Many want to control the conversation, and become upset when knowledgeable creationists keep the pressure on and hold them to the subject at hand.

Sure, there are some Christians and creationists who should not be involved in online arguments. Some are prideful, and too many lack knowledge of theology and what creationists believe and teach. Passion is no substitute for a reasonable response, and those folks need to grow in grace and knowledge before trying to do apologetics.

Actually, I lack belief that most online atheists and evolutionists are being honest when they play the innocent victim card. Let’s face it, this is an attempt to gain points against the st00pid dumb creatards and salvage their egos. As many of us have seen, it is usually based on prejudicial conjecture, bigotry, and simplistic ridicule — which backfires when given an examination. We know the truth.

Reducing Christians to Lab Rats

The secular science industry has often been reductionist when dealing with people, and in the view of this child, they are bushwhacking Christians more frequently. Indeed, atheists have accelerated their dehumanization of Christians in the past few years, and this is in conjunction with the secular science industry’s willingness to be hijacked by leftist science deniers.

Image credit before modification: Pixabay / Silvia

There have long been questions about ethics in scientific research, whether lying to test subjects in psychology, tampering with gene editing, and a host of others. In general, secular scientists have a worldview based on atheistic naturalism, so they have no consistent standard for morality.

They also believe in Darwinism, and these sidewinders display it in the way they treat other people — especially using their anti-Christian biases. Then we learn that they are also leftists. The “research” was appallingly bad, but it passed peer review (which further shows their biases). Are you surprised that they cranked out hit pieces? I’m not.

Social scientists who try to put Christians in their test tubes have the roles completely reversed.

Who do they think they are? Some social scientists (psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists) usurp the role of philosophers and theologians. They think they can treat their fellow human intellectuals like lab rats (the Ratomorphic Fallacy, according to Arthur Koestler). Well, let the philosophers and theologians return the favor and put the social scientists under the microscope.

Here are two recent papers that specifically mention Christians as a population to experiment on.

You can read the entire article by heading on over to “Christians Are Not Lab Rats“.

Another Reason To Question Evolution

It is an unscientific and unnecessary mythology used to fool the common man!

— by Kimbal Binder, first published on Radaractive before Goolag/Google took it down and then said, “Oops, we changed our minds so we put it back up”, and then did nothing of the kind. Originally published February 4, 2014. This version has been modified.

If you happened to listen to the podcast that Piltdown Superman put up on this blog yesterday, you are fully prepared to read the argument made by Scott Youngren in the article below.

I also love the quote Scott referenced from C.S. Lewis:

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Now think about what you know and why you know it.   No doubt in grade school you were taught how to count with visual aids.   Two blocks added to two blocks (or apples or whatever) were shown to be four blocks.   Very simple, easy to see and understand.  What we understand as being proven scientifically is often just a marker left on the marathon that is the advancement of human knowledge. 

Darwinist evolution is nothing like this at all.   While science DID prove using the scientific method that nothing is created or destroyed in the natural world, that all of the natural world is running downhill and that life does not come from non-life, the so-called “science” of evolution breaks these laws without shame in order to advance a religion-based philosophy of Naturalism.   To pretend that Darwinism is scientific at all is a sham, a fraud and a crime against the human mind! I can assert that with good conscience because the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis remain intact and Darwinism must be at odds with these laws.   Darwinism is not scientific at all, it is an hypothesis that is used to prop up anti-God morality and for the pleasure of atheopaths.  Evil men who wish to do things God forbids have always sought to pretend that there is no God so they can entice others to join them in their evil practices.

“The God of the Gaps: Why God and science are not competing explanations”
By Scott Youngren

“The common belief that… the actual relations between religion and science over the last few centuries have been marked by deep and enduring hostility… is not only historically inaccurate, but actually a caricature so grotesque that what needs to be explained is how it could possibly have achieved any degree of respectability.”–Cambridge University historian of science Colin Russell


“Just because science hasn’t explained something yet doesn’t mean that we should just give up and say, ‘God did it.’”


-A comment made, in various versions, by multiple atheist commenters to [his] website.
——————————-
The cartoon above provides a good depiction of how many (perhaps most) atheists perceive God. They perceive him as an explanation for natural phenomena that competes with scientific explanations, and that serves to fill gaps in scientific understanding. But this perception is completely flawed and misguided.

To read the rest of that article, click here.

In the US, organized prayer in schools was banned in 1963 because of an activist Supreme Court which did not care to follow the Constitution. In 1973 came legalized baby-murdering, Now the spread of same-sex so-called marriage has led to widespread moral chaos! Just look at what happened in Massachusetts!

Do you know who I am? It doesn’t matter who I am or what schools I attended. It is all about the information and about truth. I have a few health issues but I do have my “assault keyboard” and I am still able to fire a few virtual bullets. Evolution is a threat to both the social and scientific health of our world. Those who proclaim it tend to be as ruthless to their opposition as were the Spanish Inquisitors in the name of a government that was unholy and greedy for power and money. Here in the USA we have not yet put non-Darwinists on a rack or burned them at the stake, but the career of a scientist who does not toe the evolution line? Darwinists gladly burn their careers instead.

We do not need God to be removed from society, we need Darwinism to be cast from our minds instead. Science was begun by Christians and Theists in the first place as a belief in a God with a Logical Mind gave them impetus to investigate the means and methodology by which the entire Universe worked. It was a belief in God that was the basis for the foundation of the sciences we are familiar with today…God does not need gaps! But we need to get rid of the holes in our heads and get back to honoring God and doing the best you can…

%d bloggers like this: